home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
91-1326.ZS
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
3KB
|
63 lines
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. GREATER
WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the district of columbia circuit
No. 91-1326. Argued November 3, 1992-Decided December 14, 1992
Section 2(c)(2) of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation
Equity Amendment Act of 1990 requires employers who provide
health insurance for their employees to provide equivalent health
insurance coverage for injured employees eligible for workers' com-
pensation benefits. Respondent, an employer affected by this require-
ment, filed an action in the District Court against petitioners, the
District of Columbia and its Mayor, seeking to enjoin enforcement of
2(c)(2) on the ground that it is pre-empted by 514(a) of the Em-
ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which
provides that ERISA supersedes state laws that ``relate to any
employee benefit plan'' covered by ERISA. Although petitioners
conceded that 2(c)(2) relates to an ERISA-covered plan, the court
granted their motion to dismiss. Relying on this Court's decision in
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, it held that 2(c)(2) is
not pre-empted because it also relates to respondent's workers'
compensation plan, which is exempt from ERISA coverage, and
because respondent could comply with the provision by creating a
separate unit to administer the required benefits. The Court of
Appeals reversed, holding that pre-emption of 2(c)(2) is compelled
by 514(a)'s plain meaning and ERISA's structure.
Held:Section 2(c)(2) is pre-empted by ERISA. A state law ``relate[s]
to'' a covered benefit plan for 514(a) purposes if it refers to or has
a connection with such a plan, even if the law is not designed to
affect the plan or the effect is only indirect. See, e. g., Ingersoll-
Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 139. Section 2(c)(2) mea-
sures the required health care coverage by reference to ``the existing
health insurance coverage,'' which is a welfare benefit plan subject
to ERISA regulation. It does not matter that 2(c)(2)'s requirements
also ``relate to'' ERISA-exempt workers' compensation plans, since
ERISA's exemptions do not limit 514's pre-emptive sweep once it is
determined that a law relates to a covered plan. See Alessi v.
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 525. Petitioners' reliance
on Shaw, supra, is misplaced, since the statute at issue there did not
``relate to'' an ERISA-covered plan. Nor is there any support in
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, for their
position that 514(a) requires a two-part analysis under which a
state law relating to an ERISA-covered plan would survive pre-
emption if employers could comply with the law through separately
administered exempt plans. Pp.4-7.
292 U.S. App. D.C. 209, 948 F.2d 1317, affirmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and
Souter, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion.