Reference no: EM131165989

Delaware enacted an apprentice regulatory scheme to "develop and conduct employee training and registered apprenticeship programs" and to provide "for the establishment and furtherance of standards of apprenticeship and training to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and trainees." Under the state's prevailing wage regulations, contractors who participated in the program could pay their apprentices significantly lower wages on certain public works projects. One of the requirements for having a registered apprenticeship training program that would qualify a contractor to pay these lower wages was to be a "Delaware Resident Contractor" or hold and maintain a "Delaware Resident Business License." "The Registrant must hold and maintain a permanent place of business, not to include site trailers or other facilities serving only one contract or related set of contracts."

Thus, out-of-state contractors were basically excluded from participating in the program and qualifying for paying the lower wages. Tri-M, an out-of-state contractor who could not participate in the apprenticeship program and thus take advantage of paying lower wages to apprentices unless he established a permanent facility in the state of Delaware, sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against enforcement of the Delaware prevailing wage law and the Delaware apprenticeship and training law. On what constitutional grounds do you think Tri-M sought this injunction? Why do you believe Tri-M should have won or lost its case? [Tri-M Group v. Sharp, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5660, ____ 3d Cir. Ct of Appeals ____ (2011).]