Skip to main content

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

N.Y. App. Div.January 12, 2004Cited 1 time
Defendant WinChesterfield Associates$647,685.92 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the Department of Labor Commissioner's determination that Chesterfield Associates willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements on public works projects, upholding penalties and interest totaling approximately $647,685.92 plus 16% annual interest.

What This Ruling Means

**Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor** This case involved a construction company, Chesterfield Associates, that was accused of not paying workers the required wages on government construction projects. In New York, companies working on public projects must pay "prevailing wages" - essentially the standard rate for that type of work in the area, which is typically higher than minimum wage. The state's Department of Labor investigated and found that Chesterfield deliberately failed to pay these required wages and benefits to their workers. The court sided with the Department of Labor, ruling that Chesterfield had intentionally violated wage laws on public works projects. The company was ordered to pay approximately $647,685 in back wages, penalties, and interest, plus an additional 16% annual interest on top of that amount. This decision is important for workers because it shows that courts will enforce prevailing wage laws on government projects. When companies try to cut costs by underpaying workers on public construction jobs, they can face substantial financial penalties. It also demonstrates that workers have strong legal protections when it comes to getting paid the wages they're legally entitled to receive.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.