Ninth Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS
- 2009 Health and Welfare Plan Compliance Checklist
- GINA Interim Final Regulations Issued — Wellness Programs Impacted
- READY, SET, COMPLY! — New HIPAA Security Breach Notification Rules Require Prompt Action by Covered Entities
- Update on Discretionary Clauses in Disability Insurance Policies in California and Their Impact on ERISA Plans
- Significant HIPAA Changes Imposed by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- COBRA Premium Reduction Guidance — What Do We Do Now?
- Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 — Impact on Group Health Plans
- New COBRA Subsidy Available Under Stimulus Package
- Massachusetts Issues Final Regulations Establishing Minimum Creditable Coverage Standards
- Ninth Circuit Holds San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance is Not Preempted by ERISA
- New Genetic Nondiscrimination Act Creates Restrictions for Health Plans, Insurers and Employers
- New Leave Entitlements for Military Reasons Added to Family and Medical Leave Act
- Ninth Circuit Lets San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance Take Effect
- IRS Issues New Proposed Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Regulations
- Recent Court Decision Paves Way for Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare Benefits — AARP v. EEOC
- New Rules for HSAs
- Final Regulations on HIPAA Nondiscrimination Provisions and Wellness Programs
- New Guidance on the Use of Electronic Payment Cards for Health FSAs, HRAs and DCAPs
- Supreme Court's Sereboff Opinion Clarifies "Equitable Relief" Under ERISA
- Continuing Notice Obligations Under Medicare Part D
- Section 125 Plan 2½ Month Grace Period: Participants’ Bonus and Administrators’ Bane
- CMS Issues Final Regulations
on Medicare Part D - HIPAA Portability Regulations Finalized
- Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003: Retiree Prescription Drug Coverage
- The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004: Changes to Tax Rules for Health and Accident Coverage and to Other Employee Benefits
- Recent Guidance on Health Savings Accounts
- Discretionary Clauses in Disability Insurance Policies Ruled Illegal in California
- California Repeals Senior COBRA Program
- The U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Regulations Regarding COBRA Notices
- Ninth Circuit Holds that Health Plan Reimbursement and Subrogation Provisions are Enforceable Under State Law
- Getting Serious About Security:
Final HIPAA Security Regulations - Health Savings Accounts — the New Tax-Favored Vehicle for the Payment of Health Care Expenses
- Electronic Cards Permitted for Health Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements
- California Mandates Pay or Play Health Coverage
- Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit’s Adoption of the Treating Physician Rule
- IRS Permits Reimbursement for Certain Non-Prescription Medicines and Drugs
On March 9, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Court") denied a petition for rehearing en banc of the September 30, 2008 ruling by a three-judge panel of the Court in Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco that the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance ("Ordinance") is not preempted by ERISA. For a discussion of the September 30, 2008 ruling, see our October 2008 issue. In its petition, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association had contended that the panel's opinion:
- ignored one of the principal purposes of ERISA preemption: to prevent state and local interference with employee benefit plan administation;
- contradicted longstanding ERISA preemption authority; and
- conflicted with the Fourth Circuit's decision in Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007).
In his concurring opinion supporting the denial of rehearing, Judge William A. Fletcher stated that:
- The purpose of ERISA is not to ensure national uniformity in the provision of health care, but only to ensure that a single set of regulations govern the administrative practices of benefit plans.
- Nothing in the Ordinance requires an employer to establish or alter an existing ERISA plan.
- Nothing in the Ordinance interferes with the uniformity of ERISA regulations.
- The panel's decision does not create a circuit conflict with the Fourth Circuit. Fletcher reasoned that, while the Maryland law at issue was preempted by ERISA because it did not give the employer to which it applied a rational choice other than modifying their ERISA plan, the Ordinance does provide an employer with a meaningful alternative to establishing or modifying an ERISA plan. The Ordinance provides an employer with the option of making payments to the City to help fund the City's Health Access Program (now called the "Healthy San Francisco" program), through which its employees would be able to access health care benefits at a reduced rate.
Eight judges joined in a dissent to the denial of rehearing. The dissent stated that:
- The panel opinion created a roadmap for other state and local governments seeking to regulate employee health benefit plans.
- The decision creates a split between the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit on the issue of whether ERISA preempts "fair share" or "play-or pay" ordinances.
- The panel opinion disregarded important case law on ERISA preemption.
- Allowing the Ordinance to stand would require employers operating in multiple jurisdictions to comply with potentially conflicting laws regarding employer-provided health care. This is the administrative burden that ERISA was intended to eliminate.
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association has previously stated that they will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the Ninth Circuit. In the latest development, the Association has filed an Application for Order Staying Mandate and Vacating Stay of District Court Judgment with Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. If granted, this order would prevent enforcement of the Ordinance, at least until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the case. Unless an Order Staying Mandate and Vacating Stay of District Court Judgment is issued, covered employers must continue, at least for the time being, to comply with the Ordinance. See our January 2008 issue for details of the Ordinance's requirements.
Copyright © Trucker Huss. All rights reserved. This article is published as an information source for our clients and colleagues. The article is current as of the date shown above, is general in nature and is not the substitute for legal advice or opinion in a particular case. In response to new IRS rules of practice, we inform you that any federal tax information contained in this writing cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters in this writing.