What Does Biden's Decree Mean for Small-business Owners?

March 18, 2022

The EO on PLAs

By Alexander Cerbo, Esq.



Keeping his promise of being “the most union-friendly president in American history,” President Biden and his administration issued Executive Order (EO) 14063, which mandates project labor agreements (PLAs) on “large-scale construction projects.”


A project labor agreement is a collective bargaining agreement between a contractor and the building trade union. A large-scale construction project is one within the U.S. that has an estimated total cost of $35 million or more, and usually refers to construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, repair, or improvement of a ‘vertical public works’ project. Famous examples of large-scale construction projects that were governed by PLAs include Disney World, the Kennedy Space Center, and Yankee Stadium. The EO is estimated to impact more than 200,000 workers and $262 billion in federal funding. For those in the industry, you should become familiar with the PLA.

PLAs are negotiated before any workers are hired, and they establish the terms of employment on a project, including wages, hours, working conditions, and dispute-resolution methods, among other things. If a business is unionized, the PLA must coexist with the business’ existing collective bargaining agreement. Biden’s EO contains several additional requirements of PLAs going forward. For example, all contractors and subcontractors related to the project must be allowed to compete for work, unionized or not. In addition, these PLAs must contain mutually binding dispute-resolution provisions as well as provide alternative mechanisms for cooperation between labor and management.


But what does this mean for small businesses that are not unionized going forward? Maybe, not a whole lot of good. But that depends on your business model.


What is considered ‘small’ typically depends on what industry you are in, and could range from fewer than 500 employees or up to 2,500 employees, or even more. Essentially, you are a small business if you are a privately owned corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship that has fewer employees and less annual revenue than a public corporation or regular-sized business. According to the Small Business Administration, the construction industry has one of the highest concentrations of small business participation, well over 80%. Some argue that PLAs put small non-union construction businesses at a disadvantage because they increase the cost of doing business. Considering the fact that most small businesses in the construction industry are non-union, PLAs put them at a great disadvantage.


While PLAs are often applauded by many labor analysts for creating long-term project stability, opportunities to include minority contractors and small ‘mom-and-pop’ contractors, and better training for workers, PLAs also increase the cost of construction by requiring payment of union wages to non-union workers, something greatly detrimental to the financial interests of small businesses that wish to partake in these construction jobs.


In addition, PLAs generally require non-union contractors to pay employee benefits twice — once to their employees and once to the unions that oversee the project, often making it too costly for non-union businesses to compete for these jobs in the first place. Non-union contractors often must pay into underfunded and mismanaged union pension plans, of which their employees wouldn’t see the benefits unless they joined the union. A small business must look at these costs associated provisions, among other things, to assess the risks and costs of entering into this type of arrangement. All businesses at all levels should make sure to do the short-term and long-term math before deciding whether to get into one of these arrangements.


It is important to note that the Biden EO does not require construction companies to unionize and does not apply to construction projects controlled by local or state governments, even if they receive federal funding. Nevertheless, the PLA mandate could be catastrophic for many small businesses, often touted by many politicians as the backbone of the American economy.


Alexander J. Cerbo, Esq. is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council; (413) 586-2288; acerbo@theroyallawfirm.com


This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click here to read!

Good Faith Engagement with ADA Accommodations Makes all the Difference

June 19, 2025
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

June 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.