back on and we what we're asking for would that most reconsider was to grant fully the partial motion for summary judgment concerning all projects not just one i believe later on that it was granted most summary judgment of that event was that granted concerning that one project  construction equipment supplies tools fuel whatever it was the construction sites is that correct yes and that is the exact text from the statue the next question then going on is in many of those construction sites were what we call private work in many were public works is that correct hour seeing that as the admission that he never was considered part of that within that statute the work was never considered although right before that he admits that he did perform that exact work based on the text of the statues by saying yes he did those then i understand there may be some interpretations forus of what he may have believed of what qualified as it but i believe the language is very clear is what that type of work was in on the work that he was never paid out about at all and there about whether you can calculate damages i think the admission was clear about that he did perform the work it was always more of an issue of will can he prove that he was when he went when and where he was there what period of time and how do we calculate that for our purposes for the plaintiff that is the he actually did all the work so it could be calculated even if he could be persuasive to the finder of fact it's still a material issue of fact should preclude any summary judgment but also on the plainest portion it should show that he alleged everything it was never controverted by any evidence or by any statement or affidavit that this was never done it was just a matter of well you can't prove it so you don't get it if you don't get to recover i don't believe that's proper in that even nominal damages are this essence of damages that were judge acknowledged that the plaintiff through the deposition checkmark a list of projects that were considered public works projects as him knowing that he was at that project whether he could say definitively time dates and times he knew based on the description of the name of the project that he had been there he went through that in the deposition checkmark each one or almost every single one of them in the opinion of the trial court when he partially granted the motion to reconsider the judge said that he didn't find that persuasive again i think that's a matter of fact for th that very similar type of of playing here i believe is the lack of payment for work done i think that nominal damages show that there is some liability there it's just a matter of how much can be proven based on what the evidence is w reconsider because he did the plaintiff that is indicate that he knew of more than one project through the checkmarks and whether that's persuasive but not as good a matter of fact not a matter of law for just him whether he found that persuasive or not and that again should be a secretary of labor the u s department makes a way to determination i don't think there was any statute interpretation we even look back for arguments and debates to try to find out what the purpose of that was what intent was i don't believe either party was able by anything like that the application of the data space an act of federal civil or some of the really way to the federal law would come into place any time if the federal government had more than two thousand dollars based on the text the statue so if you would look at the result that  jack we're it's fully on the state project and there's a little bit of federal funding would be observed result in the end because that means that all only citizens workers only taxpayer dollars do not go with the same protections that were intended by the so that was where the question of whether there is a complex question of the two laws came into play again another evidentiary aspect that i think backs up that theory is that the u s department of labor has begun act and will allow that was given out people that came from administrative law basically stated whenever there is a conflict the employee sees the benefit of the higher to the standard so almost both of these laws work in conjunction not against each other similar to other minimum wage laws with so if there was a conflict of a  the conflicts argument of the issue we believe that what that says is that the federal government basically has the ability to so protect the workers the way that they do they take an act because of that  law should not be precluded just based on the federal government trying to protect a broader base of citizens throughout the country because illinois has a higher standard now the language i understand or recognize that the way that it seems to be says that wh federal government project the state law does not apply which would make sense in our interpretation that if the united states army was going to build barracks in illinois they would need to necessarily apply all the illinois federal law and that would hurt all illinois state law the prevailing wage act and bring a department of labor to regulate that and everything that would go and with the conflicts of those things these projects all in and being essentially state projects with some additional federal funding involved would it should  or any other statute exactly what that meant we believe that was in there just to avoid any conflict federal government whatever that would build projects in this language was inserted i believe this passed back in the one nine hundred thirty s or forty's it was probably so i believe it's more in language when you look at the application of it today it really doesn't make sense and it goes against the intent of the act to apply it with a defense interpretation where the state can't do anything even if they're tens of millions of dollars in a project they can enforce the laws they can't use their own u s partner doctor workers they have to rely on the u s government to apply a lower standard just impractical and improbable that they would do that on all the state projects so the interpretation of that i think is key as far as trying to determine if there is a complex issue and what the pres i plan to also testified you worked in the shop which is clearly not doug prevailing wage work and he drove to at least sixteen states  and concluded that the cedar creek project was a federally project which is not covered by the prevailing wage act i'd like to go through for a o apply all apply and the play of his entire entitle to the higher of the two ways that argument applies in the face of what the statute says sexual love in the prevailing act clearly states that it is not applicable to federal construction projects which require prevailing wage a termination by the u s department of labor labor and unambiguous however the plain implication in the plain meaning would harm the defendant and other rather i heard the player and others what  of several persons including while l brink who is the president of the defendant i looked at the trial court looked at two things a state contract zero seven it says that state contract provisions applied at the record three twenty it says the prevailing wage act applies at three twenty one it gives the state prevailing wage terminations then if you compare the same portions of a contract to the federal a contract we find that there is a section it says i dish no federal went on to say the court looked at disputes are to be covered by the u s department of labor regulations but most important on the record at three fifty eight court properly concluded the trial court probably concluded that the cedar trail project was a federal aid project and was excluded from the application of the state case such as such as this prevail in wage act and not apply thompson is exactly in the same shoes as was right there trucking in the sparks and you will company it was nothing more than  transporter and a supplier of materials construction equipment heavy operating equipment and other supplies of from their own shop that wasn't hired by a third party supplier of that aggregate already other kinds of manufactured terrorism that that case understandably the interpretation is go to every job at liberty's types of things so i think by his indication of going through a check mark and all them would show that you had a recollection that he was at that project and the fact that he didn't check all of them would show that it's not preposterous or served on reasonable that he was remembering these because  through a circle everything he obviously left out not all of not special not but a number the ones that he didn't recognize or didn't realize that there were members of his own so i think that shows that he did have a recollection damages he could show those damages to what amount we don't  know and then when we talk about the the interpretation of the statutes meaning that we don't like the ten or the we don't like the result of how the application of that language result i don't think it's a matter of the play it take their interpretation that whenever the century whenever the davis bacon act comes into play with evolution two thousand dollars or more federal money into a project and it completely precludes all the protections of this act the purpose of this act the extensiveness of it all the amendments days times at best the defendant now defendant saying we don't have those laws that you turn into us so you can't collect damages i think we just encourage employers to do whatever they can to make sure that their own boys can't prove damages later on down the road which would mean not keep