RSS icon

Top Stories

ERISA Doesn't Pre-Empt San Francisco Health Mandate, Court Rules

The 9th Circuit reasons that the ordinance does not conflict with ERISA because it does not require the creation of an 'employee welfare benefit plan' within the meaning of that federal law.

September 30, 2008
Recommend (0) Comments (0)
Related Topics: Medical Benefits Law, Benefit Design and Communication, Future Workplace, Latest News
Reprints

A San Francisco law that requires employers to spend a set amount on employee health care costs is not pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The 9th Circuit reasoned that the ordinance does not conflict with ERISA because it does not require the creation of an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the meaning of that federal law. In its Tuesday, September 30, decision, the court cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases that found "an employer's obligation to make monetary payments based on the amount of time worked by an employee, over and above ordinary raises, does not necessarily create an ERISA plan."

However, because the San Francisco decision conflicts with a 2007 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that had held a similar law in Maryland was pre-empted by ERISA, the issue ultimately may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, ERISA experts predict.

"This would unwind the fabric of ERISA if it were allowed to stand, because you'd have states, cities and even local municipalities setting different levels of requirements for health care benefits in each of their jurisdictions. It goes against the very policy ERISA put in place," said J.D. Piro, an attorney with Hewitt Associates Inc. in Norwalk, Conn.

In Golden Gate Restaurant Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco, the restaurant owners group had successfully challenged the 2006 San Francisco ordinance, arguing that its spending requirements were pre-empted by ERISA, which precludes state and local governments from enacting laws dictating the contents of employee benefit plans. Although the U.S. District Court on December 26, 2007, ruled in favor of the restaurant group, its decision had been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

The case has received national attention, and the U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief warning that upholding the San Francisco law would "open plan sponsors to a potentially bewildering and conflicting array of mandates."

Under the San Francisco law, employers with 100 or more employees have to make health care expenditures of at least $1.76 per hour for every eligible employee working in the city for at 10 or more hours per week. For-profit employers with 20 to 99 employees and nonprofit employers with 50 or more employees have to spend $1.17 per hour for eligible workers.

Employers that fail to comply with the ordinance are subject to fines equal to 150 percent of the amount they are mandated to spend on employee health care.

Calls to the restaurant association and the city and county of San Francisco were not immediately returned.

Filed by Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management's online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Comments

Hr Jobs

Loading
View All Job Listings