From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
546 F.3d 639 (2008)
The City of San Francisco (city) (defendant) enacted a healthcare-security ordinance (ordinance) that created a city-administered healthcare program for uninsured low- and moderate-income residents called the Health Access Plan (HAP). The ordinance required covered employers to make healthcare expenditures on behalf of their covered employees who worked in the city (employer spending requirement). The employer spending requirement was an hourly rate ranging from $1.17 to $1.76 depending on a covered employer’s number of covered employees. The employer spending requirement could be met in several ways, including but not limited to contributions to health savings accounts, reimbursement for healthcare-related expenses incurred by covered employees, and direct delivery of healthcare services. An employer that did not make expenditures on behalf of covered employees in one of these ways was required to make payments directly to the city (city-payment option). If a covered employer elected the city-payment option, its covered employees who satisfied age and income requirements and were otherwise uninsured were eligible to enroll in the HAP, and the employer’s other covered employees were eligible for medical-reimbursement accounts with the city. The ordinance also imposed minimal recordkeeping requirements on covered employers. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association (association) (plaintiff) filed suit, alleging that the ordinance was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and enjoined the implementation of the employer spending requirement. The city appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.