Alaska Employment Law

ERISA preemption of municipal regulation of “health care expenditures”:  After the District Court enjoined the implementation of San Francisco’s ordinance requiring larger private employers to make provide health care expenditures, the Court of Appeals has now stayed that injunction and issued a lengthy opinion (35 pages) holding that the City and the union intervenors have “a probability, even a strong likelihood, of success in  their argument that the Ordinance is not preempted by ERISA.”  Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2008 WL _______(9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2008). 

Title VII retaliation: Judge Ralph Beistline and Court of Appeals Judge Rymer have affirmed summary judgment for an employer, rejecting arguments about proximity (a 12-month gap) and co-employees’ ”insensitive” comments.  Judge Fletcher dissented.  Lawson v. Reynolds Industries Inc., 2008 WL 111116 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2008)(unpub.)

 EPLI coverage:   The Court of Appeals has reversed summary jdugment and held that a Travelers EPLI policy covered an employer’s contractual payments to an employee terminated without cause.  The Court distinguished the employer’s “continued payment” scheme from a “severance pay” scheme (which was excluded under the policy).  More on this interesting opinion later.  Acradyne Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2008)(unpub.).