Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : California Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : CA Life Insurance & ERISA Law, Life Health Disability

On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would not hear a challenge to San Francisco’s universal health care program filed by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.  The announcement effectively put an end to a four-year legal battle.

One provision of program, titled “Healthy San Francisco,” requires that businesses with at least 20 workers either provide health care coverage to their employees or pay a certain amount of money per employee hour worked to fund the health care program.  Business groups sued to halt the program, asserting that it is preempted by ERISA because it impermissibly creates an ERISA plan, or alternatively is related to employers’ existing ERISA plans.  In 2008, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the program was not preempted by ERISA.  In refusing to hear the business-led challenge to the health care program, the Supreme Court effectively sustained the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s decision was consistent with the Obama administration’s recommendation that the Court turn down the case, in part because the recently enacted national health reform law makes similar city- or state-level programs unlikely.

See a summary of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling here.

See previous Golden Gate news posts here and here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The City of San Francisco’s attempt to require that all employers in the city make mandatory contributions towards employee health costs may end up being decided by the United States Supreme Court. As expected, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the city ordinance was not preempted by ERISA. There is some dispute as to whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling created a split with the Fourth Circuit, as the dissenting judges to the petition for en banc review stated that the original opinion conflicts with a the holding in Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007). In that case, a Maryland law requiring employers to play a penalty if it did not spend a certain percentage of their payroll on health coverage was struck down on the grounds that it was preempted by ERISA. The City and County of San Francisco’s response brief is due August 24th.

See also Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n case summary.

See also Golden Gate news post.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On March 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for en banc review of Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008) wherein the Court of Appeals found that a San Francisco city ordinance requiring that all employers in the city make mandatory contributions towards employee health costs was not preempted by ERISA. Eight (generally conservative) judges joined a dissent authored by Judge Milan Smith, Jr. criticizing the decision not to rehear the case en banc, and noted that there is now a split with the Fourth Circuit; specifically, Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007). In light of this split, many believe that the United States Supreme Court will accept an expected petition for certiorari.

See also Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n case summary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks