Constant Readers,
For both of you who have been following my oh-so-prescient posts (starting here) about how the City's Health Care Security Ordinance is doomed to be struck down by a competent court, here's another update for you:
(1) We want to speak to your manager. Last Friday (2/8) the Golden Gate Restaurant Association went to the Supreme Court and filed an Application for an Order Vacating the Stay of the District Court Judgment. In that appeal, the GGRA asks that the Supreme Court reinstate the injunction on the employer contribution part of the HCSO because the Ninth Circuit's ruling allowing it to take effect, which will inevitably be overturned by the Supreme Court, will cause irreparable harm. (And will prolly result in a fat class-action lawsuit against the City.) Big props to these guys for having the guts to go over the Ninth Circus' head and take it to the Supremes before the amount of money the City will have to pay back to employers gets any larger.
(2) Zelinsky with some 'splaining to do. In the meantime, ERISA expert Professor Ed Zelinsky has published an even longer tome about why the HCSO is preempted by ERISA. (Attached at bottom of post.) In it, he argues (persuasively, I think) that employer contributions to the HAP (aka "Healthy San Francisco") on behalf of employees are not an alternative to ERISA plans - they are ERISA plans. (The definition of a "plan" under ERISA is pretty dang broad and includes "any plan, fund, or program...established or maintained by an employer...for the purpose of providing...medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits" to employees. 29 U.S.C. ยง 1002(1).) According to Zelinsky, because under the HAP the employer is basically paying into an "account" for the employee that is administered by the City, the HAP is an ERISA plan, and the law is therefore preempted. We'll add it to the list of reasons...
That's all for now, y'all. I am back on the Best Coast tomorrow!
--Melissa
Comments