The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 19, 2024, granted the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of a district court’s order to vacate the Board’s 2023 “joint employer rule.” The vacatur was a major victory for AGC and its co-plaintiffs that initiated the lawsuit challenging the Board’s regulatory effort to broaden the standard for determining when an employer may be deemed a joint employer of another company’s employees.
Successful Outcome Could Block Federal Officials from Including Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Mandate in Projects Valued over $35 million
Overturning the Chevron Doctrine Will Change How Courts Handle Lawsuits Over Federal Agency Rules
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) celebrates a significant legal victory in its ongoing efforts to protect members from overreaching federal regulations. On June 24, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Lubbock granted AGC’s motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking AGC-challenged provisions to a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) expanding coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Associated General Contractors of America Argues New Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority Under the Davis-Bacon Act, Court Agrees
You may recall, AGC of America filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the agency’s new final rule that designates two widely used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This rule imposes significant financial and legal burdens on contractors and could lead to costly litigation and stricter waste disposal practices.
AGC has notched some big wins in the courts in the last year and hopes to carry that momentum with litigation to protect construction companies.
On June 10, AGC of America, and several of its members, took to the witness stand in federal court to halt three unfair provisions in the new Davis-Bacon final rule impacting its coverage to truck drivers, contractors with material supply operations, and where an owner fails to include the requirement in the bidding documents/contract. Doug Walterscheid (J. Lee Milligan Inc., AGC of Texas member), John Ramage (71 Construction, AGC of Wyoming member), Doug Tabeling (Carroll Daniel Construction, Georgia AGC member), and Jimmy Christianson (AGC of America) testified in the U. S. District Court for The Northern District of Texas in Lubbock on behalf of the association’s legal challenge to the U.S. DOL’s unlawful expansion of Davis-Bacon coverage to construction contractors. The court hearing was on AGC of America’s motion for preliminary injunction that, if granted, would halt the U.S. Department of Labor’s enforcement of the three aforementioned provisions.
This week, AGC of America, in collaboration with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Waste Recycling Association, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the agency’s new final rule that designates two widely used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances under the Superfund law (also known as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (or CERCLA). This rule imposes significant financial and legal burdens on contractors and could lead to costly litigation and stricter waste disposal practices.
Earlier this year, AGC of America filed a coalition amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a water utility sector’s request for the Court to clarify whether Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits can include generic prohibitions. AGC members have noted these generic prohibitions in permits nationwide. This language does not provide a compliance path for permittees and exposes them to enforcement, criminal penalties, and citizen suits for activities that conform to the permit. On May 28, the Court issued an order granting certiorari, meaning it will hear the case.