BURGIO CAMPOFELICE v. N.Y. STATE DOL

3 Citing cases

  1. Burgio and Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Labor

    107 F.3d 1000 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that plaintiff could assert ERISA preemption under the Supremacy Clause, even though it was "beyond dispute" that plaintiff fell outside ERISA's express enforcement provisions

    Defendants New York State officials (collectively defendants or the State), responsible for enforcing the state labor statute under challenge here, appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Curtin, J., granting the motion of plaintiff-appellee Burgio and Campofelice, Inc. (Burgio) for summary judgment. Burgio and Campofelice, Inc., New York Dep't of Labor, 914 F. Supp. 931 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). Burgio, a general contractor, brought this action (1) to enjoin the State from enforcing New York Labor Law Section(s) 220, 223 (McKinney 1986 ed. and Supp. 1997) (the prevailing wage law), against Burgio for wage supplements that Burgio's subcontractor allegedly failed to pay its employees; and (2) to declare the prevailing wage law preempted by federal law.

  2. Board of Trustees v. L.B.S. Const

    148 N.J. 561 (N.J. 1997)   Cited 11 times

    Lower federal courts have also found preemption of laws that mention employee benefit plans or create causes of action under circumstances ERISA does not permit. See Plumbing Indus. Bd. v. L L Masons, Inc.,927 F. Supp. 645 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (invalidating section of New York Lien Law in action against contractor for subcontractor's default, and holding Lien Law created ERISA payment obligation and explicitly mentioned plans); Blackburn v. Iversen,925 F. Supp. 118 (D.Conn. 1996) (invalidating Connecticut law making officers and directors liable for corporate default on employee benefit plan payments); Burgio Campofelice, Inc. v. New YorkState Dep't of Labor, 914 F. Supp. 931 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (distinguishing Travelers and Greenblatt and holding ERISA preempted New York law setting wage supplements because law holding contractor liable for subcontractor's default law related to ERISA plans), vacated and remanded, 107 F.3d 1000, 1997 WL 89121 (2d Cir. March 4, 1997); Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Indus. v. Hatch, 672 F. Supp. 393 (D.Minn. 1987) (holding Minnesota statute requiring bonds for payment of employee health benefits preempted because it interfered with federal control over plan administration). Several state courts have found no preemption of claims for employee fringe benefits in circumstances similar to those presented here. See Eacott v. Insurance Co. of North America, 40 Conn. App. 777, 673 A.2d 587 (1996) (reversing lower court and holding, based on Bleiler, supra, action by union funds against surety based on labor and material payment bond issued pursuant to statute not preempted); Hawai`i Laborers' TrustFunds v. Maui Prince Hotel, 81 Hawai`i 487, 918 P.2d

  3. Ironworkers District Council v. Woodland Park Zoo Planning & Development

    87 Wn. App. 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    The respondents also relied on the Western District of New York's opinion in Burgio Campofelice, which held that ERISA preempted New York's prevailing wage statute. Burgio Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 914 F. Supp. 931 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). The Second Circuit has since overruled that case, finding no preemption.