WASHINGTON, November 2, 2022 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) today filed a supplemental brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in response to the recent U.S. Solicitor General’s recommendation against granting ERIC’s pending petition for certiorari. This filing marks the close of petition-stage briefing in the effort to have the U.S. Supreme Court review ERIC’s ongoing legal challenge to the City of Seattle’s onerous “play-or-pay” health care mandate on ERISA preemption grounds.
“We strongly believe there is a clear split among the federal circuits that warrants review by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Annette Guarisco Fildes, CEO, ERIC. “In fact, the U.S. Solicitor General’s brief lays out an additional conflict by taking a government position that contradicts the positions of two prior Administrations in a similar ERISA case.” In addition, the supplemental brief highlights a critical issue ignored by the Government’s brief – that municipalities have signaled their intention to adopt similar health care mandates across the country – which would continue to unravel the protections provided by ERISA and wreak havoc on nationwide administration of employee benefit plans, further warranting the Court’s review.
Filed on behalf of ERIC’s large employer member companies, the supplemental brief disposes with the many arguments contained in the U.S. Solicitor General’s opinion, including assertions that are in direct conflict with the text of federal ERISA law, distortions of the aim of Seattle’s health care ordinance, failure to recognize inconsistent Circuit Court rulings, and contradictions with the U.S. Government’s own past interpretation of this point of law.
As the U.S. Supreme Court itself has stated, ERISA contains arguably the most expansive preemption provision in any federal statute, aimed at providing a foundation for nationwide employee benefits administration free from state or local interference.
“The heart of ERIC’s case for review is the direct impact the Seattle ordinance has on the design and administration of ERISA benefit plans. We believe simply including an ‘or-pay’ cash option does not transform an ordinance otherwise clearly preempted by federal law into one that is saved from preemption,” said, Guarisco Fildes. “Adding an ‘or-pay’ option does not give states and municipalities a get out of jail free card.”
Specifically, ERIC’s supplemental brief filed today argues:
- The “or-pay” option provided by the Seattle ordinance does not relieve the ERISA preemption implications at issue
- A clear federal split persists between the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits
- The U.S. Government has released conflicting opinions on this legal issue over the course of three separate Administrations, which only the Court can resolve
- The Court’s review is urgently needed
“ERIC remains committed to defeating the Seattle ordinance and those like it, preventing similar state and local benefits laws from developing and upholding the critical protections provided by ERISA preemption,” added Guarisco Fildes.
Background
The supplemental brief filed today in “The ERISA Industry Committee v. The City of Seattle” concludes petition-stage briefing in ERIC’s legal challenge to Seattle’s “play-or-pay” health care mandate, spanning more than four years. Key milestones:
- August, 2018 – ERIC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the City of Seattle on ERISA preemption grounds for its attempt to control the design and administration of employer benefit plans that are governed solely by federal law – ERIC sought an injunction and a declaration from the court that federal law supersedes and preempts health coverage and payment mandates in Part 3 of the Seattle Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative. In March, 2020, the Court dismissed ERIC’s amended complaint against the City.
- August, 2020 – ERIC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review and overturn the lower court’s dismissal of ERIC’s challenge to the Seattle ordinance – In its appeal, ERIC argued that the court was wrong in dismissing the case because it mistakenly relied on the outdated Golden Gate Restaurant Association (546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008)) case, rather than looking to recent Supreme Court precedent. ERIC said at the time that its lawsuit reflects a critical example of preemption by ERISA, the federal law that enables employers to administer health and retirement benefits uniformly across the country. In March, 2021, the Ninth Circuit dismissed ERIC’s challenge to Seattle’s health coverage mandate.
- January and February, 2022 – ERIC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision, and subsequently received support from the nationwide employer community in the form of six amicus briefs filed on behalf of 48 groups representing employers in major industries across the country. Organizations signing and filing amicus briefs in support of ERIC’s petition included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, and national as well as state associations representing retailers, franchisers, and the hotel and lodging sector.