1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

) 

PEDRO ANGULO, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0586 (ABJ) 

) 

VINCENT C. GRAY, in his official ) 

capacity as Mayor of the District of ) 

Columbia, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiffs Pedro Angulo, Eric Shultz, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of 

Carpenters (“Carpenters”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring this action against Vincent Gray, 

Mayor of the District of Columbia (“the District” or “D.C.”), and Victor Hoskins, Deputy Mayor 

of the District of Columbia1

 (together “defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), (“Section 

1983”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of their rights under the 

Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq. (2006) (“the DBA”). See Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶ 1. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs have no judicially 

enforceable rights under the DBA because the Department of Labor (“DOL”) has not issued a 

final administrative decision as to whether the DBA even applies to this case, and (2) even if 

plaintiffs receive a favorable decision from the DOL, they still cannot enforce that decision 

through Section 1983 because there is no private right of action under the DBA. See Defs.’ 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Dkt. # 8] (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 5, 16. Because the Court 

 

1 Since this suit is against defendants in their official capacities, it will be treated as a suit 

against the District of Columbia. See, e.g., Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471−72 (1985). 
2 

finds that plaintiffs have no enforceable rights under the DBA while their administrative case is 

pending before the DOL, it will grant defendants’ motion without deciding whether a private 

right of action exists under the DBA. 

BACKGROUND 

 In September 2002, then-D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams issued a request for proposals 

for the redevelopment of the former D.C. convention center site. Compl. ¶ 8. The 

redevelopment project was named CityCenterDC, and included the construction of several 

office, apartment, and condominium buildings, as well as a large central plaza and park. Compl. 

¶ 10. 

 On April 25, 2009, before construction of the CityCenterDC project began, the 

Carpenters asked the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL to rule that the DBA applies to the 

project. Compl. ¶ 15. The DBA requires that construction contracts for “public buildings” or 

“public works” in excess of $2,000 contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid to 

certain categories of “laborers and mechanics.” Compl. ¶ 13, citing 40 U.S.C. § 3142(a). These 

minimum wages are determined by the Secretary of Labor based on prevailing local wage rates 

and fringe benefits. 40 U.S.C. § 3142(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1.1. Plaintiffs would be entitled to these 

minimum wages and the other benefits of the DBA’s labor standards if the Wage and Hour 

Division ruled in their favor. See Compl. ¶ 22. 

On August 30, 2010, the Chief of the Wage and Hour Division’s Branch of Government 

Contracts Enforcement issued a letter concluding that the DBA did not apply to the 

CityCenterDC project. Compl. ¶ 16. Plaintiffs submitted a request for reconsideration to the 

Wage and Hour Division’s Acting Administrator (“Administrator”). Compl. ¶ 17. In a June 

2011 letter – approximately two months after construction on the CityCenterDC began – the 
3 

Administrator reversed the Division’s earlier decision and concluded that the project qualified as 

a “public work” subject to the requirements of the DBA. June 2011 Decision of the Wage and 

Hour Division (June 17, 2011), Ex. 1 to Compl. at 7–8 (“June 2011 Decision”); Compl. ¶¶ 17, 

19. Accordingly, the Administrator ordered that “all existing, relevant contracts, obligations, and 

other agreements [related to the CityCenterDC project] . . . be amended, as necessary, in 

accordance with the DBA.” June 2011 Decision at 8. The Administrator also decided that the 

DBA’s wage and other requirements would apply prospectively starting with the first pay period 

week immediately following the June 2011 ruling and not retrospectively starting with the first 

day of construction on April 4, 2011. Id. The Administrator noted that the decision constituted 

“a final ruling” of the Wage and Hour Division under 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 but that “[a]ny interested 

party may file a petition for review with the [DOL] Administrative Review Board [“ARB”]

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 7.9.” Id. 

 The District of Columbia and CityCenterDC developers appealed the June 2011 decision 

to the ARB asserting that the CityCenterDC project is not a “public building” or “public work” 

subject to the requirements of the DBA because it is entirely privately financed, privately 

constructed, and not designed for use or occupancy by the government. See generally District of 

Columbia and CityCenterDC Developers’ Petitions to the ARB, Exs. 2 and 3 to Defs.’ Mot. to 

Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] (Defs.’ Mot.); see also Defs.’ Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal to the 

ARB challenging the Administrator’s determination that the DBA would apply prospectively 

from the June 2011 decision and not retroactively from the beginning of construction. MidAtlantic Regional Council of Carpenters’ Petition to the ARB, Ex. 4 to Defs.’ Mot. at 1–2. 

 While the appeal was pending, plaintiffs petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for a writ 

of mandamus to compel the District and the developers to incorporate the DBA’s labor standards 
4 

into the relevant contracts as required by the Administrator’s June 2011 decision. Compl. ¶ 26. 

In a per curiam decision, the court denied the writ and stated that while the “petitions for review 

are pending before the [ARB] . . . further relief, if there be need for any, may be sought before 

the federal agency or U.S. District Court. . . .” Mid-Atlantic Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. 

Gray, No. 10-OA-32 (D.C. Oct. 17, 2011) (per curiam), Ex. 4 to Compl. According to plaintiffs, 

the Wage and Hour Division has also “failed and refused” to compel defendants to comply with 

the June 2011 decision. Compl. ¶ 30; see also Pls.’ Statement of Points and Authorities in 

Support of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 10] (“Pls.’ 

Opp.”) at 9 (stating that DOL regulations do not “include a means of compelling a recalcitrant 

Federal agency or, as in this case, the District to comply with the Administrator’s determination 

pursuant to section 1.6(f)”). Dissatisfied with their failed attempts to obtain relief elsewhere, 

plaintiffs filed the present action asking this Court to compel defendants to comply with the 

Administrator’s June 2011 decision. Prayer for Relief. ¶¶ 1–2. Defendants have moved for 

dismissal of the case. See generally Defs.’ Mot. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for summary 

judgment and filed a single brief in opposition to defendants’ motion and in support of their 

motion. See generally Pls.’ Opp. The Court has stayed plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment 

pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss. Minute Order (July 13, 2012). Both 

parties’ appeals of the June 2011 decision are still pending before the ARB. Defs.’ Mem. at 9. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated the two principles 
5 

underlying its decision in Twombly: “First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the 

allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 556 U.S. at 678. And 

“[s]econd, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” 

Id. at 679. 

A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. 

“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a 

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A pleading must offer more than 

“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” id., 

quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

 When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint is construed 

liberally in plaintiff’s favor, and the court should grant plaintiff “the benefit of all inferences that 

can be derived from the facts alleged.” Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 

(D.C. Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if 

those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the court accept 

plaintiff’s legal conclusions. See id.; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

In ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court may ordinarily consider 

only “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by 

reference in the complaint, and matters about which the Court may take judicial notice.” 

Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2002). 
6 

ANALYSIS 

The question currently before the Court is whether the Administrator’s June 2011 ruling 

gave rise to rights under the DBA that are enforceable under Section 1983. The Court concludes 

that the ruling cannot be enforced in this manner while the appeal of the Administrator’s decision 

is pending before the ARB. Therefore, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

The DBA requires, in pertinent part, that 

every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the . . . District of Columbia 

is a party, for construction . . . of public buildings and public works . . . 

and which requires or involves the employment of mechanics or laborers 

shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid various 

classes of laborers and mechanics. 

40 U.S.C. § 3142(a). The District has the initial responsibility for determining whether a 

particular construction project is subject to the DBA. 29 C.F.R. § 1.4. However, the Secretary 

of Labor is ultimately responsible for administering and interpreting the DBA. See

Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. App. (2006). This authority, including 

determining whether the statute applies to a particular project, has been delegated to the 

Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL. 29 C.F.R. § 1.1; id. § 5.13. Thus, a 

party seeking to have the DBA’s minimum wage provisions incorporated into a construction 

contract – in light of an unfavorable decision from the District – must request and obtain a ruling 

from the Administrator stating that the DBA applies to the particular project. See 29 C.F.R. § 

5.13 (“All questions relating to the application and interpretation of wage determinations . . . 

[provided for by the DBA] shall be referred to the Administrator for appropriate ruling or 

interpretation.”). 

Any party aggrieved by the Administrator’s final decision with respect to the application 

of the DBA to a specific project may appeal that decision to the Department of Labor 
7 

Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). See 29 C.F.R. § 7.9(a); id. § 7.1(b) and (e) (The ARB 

“is an essentially appellate agency” with “jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals 

concerning questions of law and fact from final decisions under parts 1, 3, and 5 of this subtitle . 

. . .”). On appeal, the ARB “may remand under appropriate instructions any case for the taking 

of additional evidence and the making of new or modified findings by reason of the additional 

evidence.” Id. § 7.1(e). The ARB “shall act as fully and finally as might the Secretary of Labor 

concerning” a matter within the scope of its jurisdiction. Id. § 7.1(d). 

 Plaintiffs seek “declaratory and injunctive relief [under Section 1983] compelling the 

District as mandated in the Administrator’s June 17, 2011 [decision] to incorporate the provision 

stating the minimum wages to be paid various classes of mechanics and laborers in all ‘existing, 

relevant contracts, obligations and other agreements . . . as necessary in accordance with [DBA 

§3142(a)].’” Pls.’ Opp. at 14; see also Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1−2. To state a claim under Section 

1983, plaintiffs must first plausibly allege that defendants deprived them of their constitutional or 

statutory rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 679 (“only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to 

dismiss”). In an attempt to meet this standard, plaintiffs assert that the June 2011 decision 

accorded them the “right under the Davis-Bacon Act” to have certain minimum wage provisions 

incorporated into their construction contracts and that defendants’ failure to comply with that 

decision deprives plaintiffs of that right. Compl. ¶¶ 34–35 (emphasis added). This allegation 

fails on its face because the question of whether the DBA applies to the CityCenterDC project is 
8 

still pending before the ARB. Without a final decision from the ARB, there are no statutory 

“rights” that this Court can enforce under Section 1983.2

 

Plaintiffs rely heavily on Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Energy, No. 99–3402, slip op. at 12 n.4 (D.D.C. June 20, 2001) to support their contention that a 

decision from the Administrator constitutes a final decision from the DOL. Pls.’ Opp. at 15−17. 

In Hanford, the court held that a letter from the Administrator was a “final decision” of the DOL 

where neither party appealed to ARB. Hanford, No. 99–3402 at 5−12. But here, both parties 

have appealed the Administrator’s decision to the ARB and thus the Administrator’s ruling is not 

a final agency decision. Moreover, in its June 2011 letter, the Administrator recognized that 

although its decision was a “final ruling” of the Wage and Hour Division pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 

5.13, it was not necessarily a “final ruling” on whether the DBA applies to the CityCenterDC 

project, and any party could appeal the decision to the ARB. See June 2011 Decision at 8.3

 

 

2 The section of the subtitle regarding the resolution of disputes of fact or law concerning 

payment of prevailing wage rates, overtime pay, or proper classification explicitly states that 

“[i]f a timely response to the Administrator’s findings or ruling is not made or a timely petition 

for review is not filed, the Administrator’s findings and/or ruling shall be final . . . . If a timely 

response or petition for review is filed, the findings and/or ruling of the Administrator shall be 

inoperative unless and until the decision is upheld by the . . . Administrative Review Board.” 29 

C.F.R § 5.11(d). Although section 5.11 is not directly at issue in this case, it demonstrates that in 

an analogous situation, the Administrator’s decision is not a final DOL decision while an appeal 

is pending before the ARB. 

3 The Court is mindful of plaintiffs’ concern that they are presently suffering irreparable 

harm and that “[t]he average case pending before the ARB is resolved approximately two years

or more after a petition for review is filed.” Pls.’ Opp. at 4; Compl. ¶ 32. But if plaintiffs are 

concerned that there has been an unreasonable delay in the administrative process, their proper 

remedy rests under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, not under Section 1983. 
9 

CONCLUSION 

 Because the June 2011 decision does not give plaintiffs rights under the Davis-Bacon Act 

that are enforceable under Section 1983, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss 

[Dkt. # 8]. A separate order will issue. 

AMY BERMAN JACKSON 

United States District Judge 

DATE: December 3, 2012