Garney Construction, the Kansas City-based water and wastewater contractor formally known as Garney Companies Inc., has been named in a range of lawsuits and regulatory actions over its history, including an EEOC disability discrimination settlement, a failed federal bid-protest suit against the City of Kansas City, a reversed garnishment judgment in Missouri, several OSHA excavation citations, and a pending breach-of-contract case in Oklahoma federal court.
EEOC Disability Discrimination Case
In September 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Garney Construction Co. and Georgia Power Company in the Northern District of Georgia under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The applicant, Bryan Mimmovich, had epilepsy diagnosed at age 12 but had been seizure-free for more than eight years on medication, and he had previously held the same front-end loader job twice.1U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Garney Construction and Georgia Power Pay $49,500 To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit
Garney offered Mimmovich the position, then withdrew the offer after he failed a Department of Transportation physical because of his epilepsy medication. The EEOC argued that federal law does not require heavy equipment operators to pass DOT physicals, and that Garney should have made an individualized assessment of his ability to do the work. The agency also alleged Georgia Power interfered by requiring Garney to impose the DOT standard without individualized review.1U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Garney Construction and Georgia Power Pay $49,500 To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit
The case settled in June 2012. Garney and Georgia Power paid Mimmovich $49,500, agreed to additional employee training on disability discrimination and pre-employment physical requirements, and redistributed their anti-discrimination policies.2U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Selected List of Pending and Resolved Cases Under the Americans With Disabilities Act
Bid Protest Against the City of Kansas City
In 1999, Garney sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri, after losing a Water Services Department contract despite submitting the lowest bid among firms that met the city’s Minority and Women Business Enterprise participation requirements. The City Council instead awarded the work to Darnaby Construction, which had not met the MBE/WBE requirements and had not shown “best efforts” to do so. The council waived its own diversity rules because Darnaby’s bid was roughly $1.7 million lower than Garney’s.3Findlaw. Garney Companies Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 207 F.3d 1085
Garney argued the waiver violated its due process rights and that the waiver ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. District Court rejected both claims, finding that under Missouri law an unsuccessful bidder has no property interest in a contract or a fair bidding process, and that the $1.7 million savings supplied a clear “best interests of the City” justification. In March 2000, the Eighth Circuit affirmed and called Garney’s claims meritless, while declining to reach the broader question of whether such a waiver ordinance could ever be void for vagueness.3Findlaw. Garney Companies Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 207 F.3d 1085
A&L Underground Garnishment Reversal
Garney was pulled into a debt-collection dispute when A&L Underground Inc., a creditor of Leigh Construction Inc., tried to garnish payments it believed Garney owed to Leigh Construction of North Carolina, arguing the North Carolina firm was an alter ego of its debtor. The Jackson County, Missouri, trial court ordered Garney to pay $120,284.10, and when Garney refused, entered a general judgment against it.4Findlaw. A & L Underground Inc. v. Leigh Construction Inc., 162 S.W.3d 509
Garney argued it owed nothing because the subcontractor’s work was defective and the contractor had never submitted contractually required lien waivers showing its own subcontractors and suppliers had been paid. In May 2005, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, agreed and reversed the judgment. A garnishing creditor, the court held, can only recover what the garnishee actually owes the debtor, and since the contractor never satisfied the contract’s payment conditions, no obligation existed. Equitable theories like quantum meruit did not apply where a valid express contract governed. The case was sent back with instructions that A&L reimburse Garney for costs and attorney fees.5vLex. A & L Underground Inc. v. Leigh Const. Inc., 162 S.W.3d 509
OSHA Citations for Excavation and Trench Safety
Garney has drawn multiple federal safety citations tied to excavation and trenching work.
Huntsville, Alabama (2002)
After an October 2002 inspection in Huntsville, the Secretary of Labor cited Garney for four alleged serious violations of excavation standards. In June 2003, an administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission affirmed two: a $1,625 penalty for failing to protect employees from a 100,000-pound excavator positioned at the edge of a trench, and $3,000 for an inadequate sloping and benching system in an excavation nearly eight feet deep. Two other citations were vacated for insufficient evidence. The judge noted Garney had no affirmed OSHA violations in the preceding three years.6Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Secretary of Labor v. Garney Construction Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 02-2134
2015 Excavation Citation
A 2015 inspection produced a serious citation under the excavation protective systems standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652, with an initial penalty of $2,400. Garney contested, and the matter closed with a final order in July 2016 at a reduced penalty of $250.7OSHA. Violation Detail – Garney Companies Inc.
Denver, Colorado (2022)
OSHA opened a referral-based inspection of a Garney jobsite in Denver in December 2022 with a trench-safety emphasis. The agency issued a single citation under the general training and education standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(2), initially classified as serious with a proposed penalty of $15,625. Garney resolved the matter through an informal settlement in 2023 at $10,000.8OSHA. Inspection Detail – Garney Companies Inc.
Global Underground Breach of Contract Suit
Global Underground Corporation filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Garney Companies in August 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, before Judge Charles Goodwin. The case remains active as of mid-2026, with the parties filing a joint motion to extend deadlines in June 2026. Garney appears as both defendant and counter-claimant, indicating it has asserted its own claims against Global Underground. Limited public detail is available about the underlying dispute.9PACER Monitor. Global Underground Corporation v. Garney Companies Inc. et al
Vista Ridge Project: Related Litigation, Not Against Garney
Garney’s 2016 acquisition of an 80% equity stake in the Vista Ridge Regional Water Supply Project in Texas has been surrounded by litigation and scrutiny, but those disputes have not named Garney as a party. Landowners challenged the eminent domain authority of the Central Texas Regional Water Supply Corporation, and a separate dispute between project subentities Blue Water Systems and Metropolitan Water Co. raised questions about the validity of groundwater leases central to the project. A critical report by the Aquifer Alliance argued that contract amendments eroded risk protections for San Antonio Water System ratepayers and that SAWS potentially had grounds to terminate the agreement.10Aquifer Alliance. Vista Ridge WTPA Analysis Garney took on the stake after Abengoa Vista Ridge’s Spanish parent filed for creditor protection in late 2015 and work stalled; the deal required SAWS board approval and included assumption of past-due bills to contractors and a $120 million bridge loan. SAWS CEO Robert Puente said at the time that Garney assumed “100% authority… and all of the risk.”11San Antonio Report. Garney Construction Looks To Buy Vista Ridge