Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Key Word Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Law Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« Discharge for having firearms on company property | Main | US Supreme Court re-argument in employee speech case »

City's Equal Benefits Law is preempted
February 15, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Council of City of New York v. Bloomberg (New York 02/14/2006) holds (by a 4-3 vote) that New York City's "Equal Benefits Law" is preempted by a state statute and by ERISA.

New York City's law says no city agency can enter a contract for more than $100,000 with a company that fails to provide its employees' domestic partners with benefits equal to those provided to spouses. A "domestic partner" is anyone registered under either the Equal Benefits Law or NYC Administrative Code Section 3-240(a) (Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005).

New York's highest court has ruled the Equal Benefits Law is preempted by a state statute on public works contracts. General Municipal Law Section 103 says "all contracts for public work involving an expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars and all purchase contracts involving an expenditure of more than ten thousand dollars, shall be awarded . . . to the lowest responsible bidder . . . ."

The court says "the Equal Benefits Law violates this requirement by excluding from public contracting any 'responsible bidder' that does not provide equal benefits to domestic partners and spouses."

The court also ruled that the law is preempted by ERISA - the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act because it "seemingly seeks to ... prescribe the terms of [ERISA-regulated] benefit plans."

A DISSENT by three judges argued that the court should not have reached the merits of the case due to the procedural posture of the case (an Article 78 proceeding) which does not allow for a full examination of all the facts. The dissent would have sent the case back to allow for declaratory judgment action to proceed in the normal course.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Advanced Search.