Ninth Circuit Court Rules SF Health Care Mandate Not Preempted By ERISA

Get Legal Help Today

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: Jun 19, 2018

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a San Francisco health care mandate is not preempted by ERISA – the Employee Retirement Income Security Act – in a case that has received national attention and may make its way to the United States Supreme Court.

Why the controversy?

The controversy over this case, Golden Gate Restaurant Assn. vs. City and County of San Francisco, stems from a San Francisco ordinance that requires employers to make certain health care expenditures for every employee as follows:

  • $1.76 per hour for every eligible employee working in the city for at 10 or more hours per week – applicable to employers with 100 or more employees.
  • $1.17 per hour for profit employers with between 20 and 99 employees and for non-profit employers with 50 or more employees.

The Restaurant Association claimed that the ordinance was preempted by ERISA, which precludes state and local governments from enacting laws dictating the contents of employee benefit plans. Even the U.S. Department of Labor filed a brief in the case saying that upholding the city ordinance would “open plan sponsors to a potentially bewildering and conflicting array of mandates.” However, the court held that San Francisco’s ordinance was not an employee benefit plan and therefore was not preempted. According to news reports, the case may make its way to the United States Supreme Court for clarification on the definition of employee benefit plan.

What are employee benefit plans?

Currently under ERISA, employee benefits plans include employee pension benefits plans and employee welfare benefits plans which are defined as:

  • Employee pension benefit plans. An employee pension benefit plan includes any plan, fund, or program established by an employer, union, or both that provides, by its express terms or as the result of surrounding circumstances, for a retirement income for employees or deferral of income for use after termination of employment (29 USC Sec. 1002(2)(a)).
  • Employee welfare benefit plans. An employee welfare plan is any plan fund or program established by an employer, union, or both that provides a wide variety of benefits including medical, sickness, accident, unemployment, vacation, disability, day care, scholarships, training programs and prepaid legal services (29 USC Sec. 1002(1)).

Why are these definitions important? If you’ve been denied benefits under a plan that is subject to ERISA, then there are specific procedures you must follow to protest the denial. An ERISA attorney can explain the process, what’s required and how long it might take.

Get Legal Help Today

Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption