Photo: Sawat Banyenngam/Shutterstock.com

A federal judge has declined to toss out a lawsuit filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 against a contractor for allegedly underpaying workers for electrical jobs during a SEPTA project.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendant Farfield's request for summary judgment, ruling that issues of fact remained as to whether the company failed to pay workers the prevailing rate for journeyman electrical work.

According to Kearney's opinion, Local 98 alleged that Farfield had its groundmen perform skilled electrician work but paid them at a lower, unskilled worker rate. The union also claimed the company submitted false claims to the federal government, which funded the project.

The project involved the improvement of a seven-and-a-half-mile stretch of track operated by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority from Wayne Junction to Glenside. A key part of the case was determining job classifications.

"The parties cite many worker classifications: groundman, laborer, lineman, journeyman lineman, journeyman indoor wireman, journeyman outdoor lineman, foreman indoor wireman, apprentice indoor wireman, and journeyman electrician. The parties do not clearly explain the differences between the dizzying array of positions," Kearney said. "Notwithstanding the various classifications, Local 98 conceded at oral argument we may divide workers into two buckets: groundmen and laborers in one bucket and linemen, journeymen, foremen, wiremen, and apprentices in the other bucket. It appears the distinction is based on experience in the electrical field."

According to Kearney, questions remained as to what kind of work the groundmen performed, and that precluded summary judgment.

"Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Local 98 as we must on summary judgment, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the type of work groundmen performed and whether they 'assisted' journeymen in identified work precluding summary judgment," Kearney said. "We do not know what 'assist' means; we do not know how one or more of the groundmen performed these services. Did they assist or do the work without supervision? We do not know how Local 98 intends to prove the day-to-day work effort at least on a prima facie basis. We do not today decide the relative burdens of proof at trial. But we cannot decide in favor of Farfield based on this genuinely disputed record. The material facts concerning the groundmen's activities are challenged by testimony suggesting performing work possibly beyond assisting the journeyman."

Farfield also claimed that the statute of limitations had run on the union's claims. Farfield argued that because the government declined to intervene when the initial complaint was filed in 2003, time had run out.

Local 98 countered that, under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 ruling in Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel. Hunt, a relator is not "the official of the United States" triggering a three-year statute of limitations period.

"Local 98 filed its complaint on September 17, 2009, seven years after Farfield's first violation in September 2002 and is timely under the limitations period," Kearney said.

Susan R. Friedman of Stevens & Lee represents Farfield and did not respond to a request for comment.

James E. Goodley of Jennings Sigmond represents IBEW and did not respond to a request for comment.