On June 23, 2026, the New York Court of Appeals eliminated two commonly asserted defenses to prevailing wage claims on public works projects. In Walton v. Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse), Inc., the Court held that Labor Law § 220’s prevailing wage requirements are incorporated into every covered public works contract by operation of law, regardless of the contract’s terms. The Court also held that employers cannot rely on contractual provisions shortening the limitations period for prevailing wage claims. The decision should prompt contractors and subcontractors operating in New York to revisit their public works contracts.
Background
The case arose from a lawsuit brought by workers Kevin Maddison and David Walton, who alleged that Comfort Systems failed to pay prevailing wages for fire alarm testing and inspection services performed for fire departments, community colleges, and school districts.
The contracts took varying approaches to prevailing wage obligations:
- Some stated that they were entered into with the “understanding that the services to be provided by [defendant] are not required to be paid under any local, state, or federal prevailing wage statute.”
- Others stated that the “contract amount is based on our regular labor rates” and instructed customers that “if prevailing wage applies contact our office immediately for a revised [a]greement.”
- Two contracts expressly provided that the “proposal amount is based on prevailing wage rates,” while several contracts were silent on the issue altogether.
All of the contracts, however, included a clause stating that “[n]o action shall be brought against [defendant] more than one year after accrual of the cause of action.”
Comfort Systems argued that the workers could not pursue breach of contract claims as third-party beneficiaries because certain contracts did not expressly promise payment of prevailing wages. The company also argued that the claims were barred by the contracts’ one-year limitations provision.
The Court’s Decision
The Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) whether Labor Law § 220’s prevailing wage requirement is incorporated into covered public works contracts by operation of law, thereby permitting workers to assert third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims, and (2) whether a contractual provision shortening the limitations period for such claims to one year is enforceable against workers.
The Court answered both questions in the workers’ favor. As to the first question, the Court held that Labor Law § 220 effectively reads a prevailing wage obligation into every covered public works contract, regardless of the specific language used by the contracting parties. As a result, workers may enforce those obligations as third-party beneficiaries. As to the second question, the Court held that contractual provisions shortening the limitations period for prevailing wage claims to one year are unenforceable. Although parties generally may agree to shortened limitations periods, the Court concluded that “allow[ing] contracting parties to limit workers’ ability to recover prevailing wages without the workers’ input or agreement would be plainly inconsistent with the statute’s purpose.”
Key Takeaway for Employers
This decision increases risk for contractors, subcontractors, and service providers performing work on public projects in New York. The court made clear that prevailing wage obligations cannot be avoided through contract drafting, and that workers may pursue breach of contract claims to enforce prevailing wage rights even where contractual language is silent or inconsistent. The ruling also limits the effectiveness of procedural defenses, such as contractual limitations periods, at the early stages of litigation. More broadly, the decision reinforces that prevailing wage protections are statutory rights—not merely contractual obligations—and that courts will construe and enforce those protections accordingly.
Contractors and subcontractors should use the decision as an opportunity to review project classifications, payroll practices, subcontractor compliance, and contract language before bidding on their next public project. Practical steps may include confirming whether the work falls within Labor Law § 220 before pricing the job; obtaining and reviewing applicable wage schedules; documenting the basis for any classification decisions; ensuring certified payroll records are accurate and complete; requiring subcontractors to certify prevailing wage compliance; and building appropriate labor-cost assumptions into bids rather than relying on contract language to shift or avoid prevailing wage obligations. Employers should also train project managers, estimators, and payroll personnel to flag potential prevailing wage issues early, because misclassification or underpayment problems are often more difficult and expensive to correct after work has begun.
Harris Beach Murtha’s Labor and Employment Practice Group will continue monitoring this issue and report new developments. If you have questions or need assistance with this or other labor matters, please reach out to attorney Daniel J. Palermo at (585) 419-8946 and dpalermo@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Joshua D. Steele at (585) 419-8846 and jsteele@harrisbeachmurtha.com; or the Harris Beach Murtha attorney with whom you most frequently work.
This alert is not a substitute for advice of counsel on specific legal issues.
Harris Beach Murtha’s lawyers and consultants practice from offices throughout Connecticut in Bantam, Hartford, New Haven and Stamford; New York State in Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, New York City, Niagara Falls, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Long Island and White Plains; as well as in Boston, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey.