SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH CARE PROGRAM STILL BREATHING

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court refused yet another emergency motion to stop San Francisco's controversial program requiring employers to spend specified funding on employees' health care - the second refusal in the continuing battle between the city and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. The ordinance has been in effect since January 2008, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of judgment allowing San Francisco to extend health coverage to its uninsured residents by freezing a district court's earlier ruling that the landmark employer-funded health care program was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Association plans to file a petition for certiorari review, and remains optimistic the Supreme Court will eventually agree to hear the merits of their dispute. The Association requested the stay in order to both "spare our membership what we consider to be the illegal cost of the mandate" during the possible 15 months before the Supreme Court would actually rule on the case - if it elects to hear the matter, and to avoid "inconsistent legal decisions" that could encourage other municipalities to pass similar legislation. The city of San Mateo, California, has created a task force to consider the program, and similar legislation has been introduced in New Jersey and Connecticut.

San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance

San Francisco's controversial Health Care Security Ordinance, requiring employers to pay assigned amounts of money toward employees’ health care, may be heading toward argument at the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (by majority of a split decision 11-judge panel) on a petition for rehearing, rejecting the argument that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prevented the city and labor groups from requiring employer-provided health care.