The New York Labor Law § 220 (NYLL § 220) — which guarantees “prevailing wage” protections for certain public-works laborers, mechanics, and workers — may soon apply more broadly than many contractors realized, thanks to a recent ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit). On September 9, 2025, the court held that technicians who test and inspect fire-alarm and sprinkler systems for public-works clients are entitled to those wages. But the court stopped short of deciding two other major issues — instead sending those questions to New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, for clarification.
What Are the Facts?
The underlying case involves Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse), Inc. (doing business as ABJ Fire Protection) and two former employees — alarm-system technicians who performed testing and inspection of fire-alarm and sprinkler systems in public buildings under state or local government contracts.
The district court originally rejected their prevailing-wage claims for three reasons: (1) the public-works contracts did not explicitly promise to pay prevailing wages, (2) they contained a one-year statute-of-limitations clause, and (3) inspection and testing work was not covered under § 220.
On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed on the third point — concluding that the inspection/testing work does qualify as “construction, maintenance or repair work” under § 220. The court credited a 2009 opinion from New York State Department of Labor (NYS DOL), which had determined such work is covered, and held that the opinion deserves deference.
But the court found state law was unclear on two threshold questions:
- Whether a prevailing-wage commitment is always implied in every public-works contract (even if the contract does not explicitly include wage language), thereby authorizing workers to sue under a third-party–beneficiary breach of contract theory.
- Whether private contract terms shortening the statute of limitations (e.g., to one year) are enforceable — effectively limiting workers’ ability to bring claims.
Because these are unsettled under New York law, the Second Circuit formally certified both questions to the New York Court of Appeals for its guidance — meaning a definitive answer is now up to the state’s top court.
Why This Matters
The decision builds on decades of interpretation under NYLL § 220 and marks a continuing expansion of how “public works” labor is defined.
The prevailing-wage requirement in New York goes back over 100 years; its roots trace to constitutional amendments from the early 20th century ensuring public-works laborers aren’t paid less than the local prevailing rate for their trade.
In 2009, the NYS DOL issued a letter concluding that testing and inspection of fire systems qualified as maintenance under § 220. That letter addressed long-standing confusion about whether non-construction tasks like inspections fell under the statute. New York State Unified Court System.
Historically, disputes over prevailing wages have focused on traditional construction, renovation, maintenance or repair work. This ruling reinforces that preventive or compliance-driven tasks — like fire-alarm inspections required under code — should not be excluded.
If the Court of Appeals follows the Second Circuit, technicians, inspectors, and others providing similar services on public-works contracts could have a stronger pathway to claim prevailing wages.
Implications — For Workers, Employers, Contractors, and Regulators
- For technicians & inspectors: This decision strengthens the argument that your fire-alarm or sprinkler inspection/testing work should be compensated at prevailing-wage rates — even if the contract didn’t explicitly promise it. If you worked under a public-works agreement in New York, you may now have grounds to claim unpaid wages.
- For contractors and subcontractors: Fire-alarm, sprinkler, or alarm-system firms that contract with public entities should review whether their contracts are compliant with § 220 — and consider including explicit prevailing-wage language going forward. Contractual attempts to shorten the statute of limitations may be risky.
- For public agencies awarding contracts: Agencies may now need to scrutinize maintenance- and compliance-type contracts (e.g., for fire-safety systems) to ensure prevailing-wage obligations are satisfied.
- For regulators: The ruling reinforces the role of administrative interpretation (like the 2009 NYS DOL letter) in shaping coverage, and signals the importance of updating guidance to reflect evolving courts’ views.
For further details, please contact the lawyers at Tobia & Lovelace Esq., LLC at 201-638-0990.