Opinion

Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry

  • 1 Cal. 4th 976
  • 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 837
  • 824 P.2d 643
  • 30 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1281
  • 1992 Cal. LEXIS 1270
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 24, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Baxter
On the bench
Kennard, Panelli, Arabian, Baxter
Cited by
111 cases

holding that "[t]he acts of one public agency will bind another public agency only when there is ... an identity of interests between the agencies”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that "[t]he acts of one public agency will bind another public agency only when there is ... an identity of interests between the agencies”
  • "Contractors that do not pay the prevailing wage to their workers enjoy a competitive advantage over contractors that do, and may be preferred by local government agencies for public works projects, because the construction dollar will purchase more when a contractor paying less than the prevailing wage is selected."
  • describing California's public policy interests in enforcing § 90.5(a) for all work performed within its boundaries
  • "[C]courts refuse to impose civil penalties against a party who acted with a good faith and reasonable belief in the legality of his or her actions."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I agree with the majority that Lusardi Construction Company (Lusardi) cannot be held liable for statutory penalties. I respectfully dissent, however, from the remainder of the judgment and the majority’s reasoning. I have concurred in Justice Panelli’s explanation of why Lusardi should not be required to pay the difference between the prevailing wages and the wages that Lusardi contracted to pay. (Cone, and dis. opn. of Panelli, J., at pp. 999-1004, ante.) I write separately only to state that I also agree with Justice Arabian’s conclusion that the majority opinion results in a miscarriage of justice. (Cone, and dis. opn. of Arabian, J., at pp. 1004-1008, ante.) As he explains and as the Court of Appeal observed, this case cries out for application of equitable estoppel.

In an apparent attempt to render its harsh result more palatable, the majority suggests that Lusardi “has remedies against the District, Imperial, and perhaps others for indemnification . . . .” (Maj. opn., at p. 997, ante.) This result not only delays justice to Lusardi, it unnecessarily consumes court resources.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.