A group of construction workers filed collective action 1:24-cv-00262 January 29, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for D.C. vs. Foulger-Pratt Construction, Inc. ("Foulger-Pratt") and Christian Siding, LLC ("Christian Siding"), alleging that the Defendants ironically cheated them out of wages they were due under federal and DC law while working on the Paxton affordable housing development at 1603 Benning Road NE, a $101 million project funded in part by the DC Housing Finance Agency through $46.9 million in tax exempt bonds and $42 million in tax credits, as well as through a subsidized $29 million loan from D.C. Department of Housing & Community Development's Housing Production Trust Fund.
The collective action alleges that Defendants Christian Siding, a Virginia-based carpentry subcontractor to general contractor Defendant Foulger-Pratt, cheated its workers by (a) misclassifying them as independent contractors when it hired them and treating them as independent contractors until it learned in December 2023 that workers were interested in forming a union, (b) failing to pay overtime, (c) failing to pay the prevailing wage, and (d) failing to pay the D.C. minimum wage. Under D.C. law, Defendant Foulger-Pratt is liable for the wage theft of its subcontractor.
Defendant Foulger-Pratt is a D.C. corporation that operates as a general contractor and construction manager on public and private projects nationwide. Foulger-Pratt was the Paxton's developer and general contractor.
It’s worth noting that in 2018, a group of construction workers filed collective action 2018 CA 005406 B in D.C. Superior Court vs. general contractor Foulger-Pratt, drywall subcontractor Manganaro MidAtlantic, LLC, and Manganaro’s labor sub, Genesis Contractors, LLC, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay workers the promised wages and overtime premiums for work related to the construction of The Modern at Art Place, a residential building at 400 Galloway Street NE. The complaint alleged that while employed by Defendants on the Project, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week but were not paid at the required time-and-a-half overtime rate. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs were paid nothing for certain weeks of work.