In a much anticipated opinion with far-reaching consequences, the Ninth Circuit recently sided with the City and County of San Francisco (the ?City?) in a dispute with a restaurant trade association involving the extent to which the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts, or renders unenforceable, a municipal health care ordinance requiring employers either to pay a certain hourly rate toward health care for employees or to pay a like amount into a City-funded health care plan. The case is Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco, and it is at the epicenter of the debate over the extent to which states and local governments can finance health care by requiring payments from employers under so-called ?pay-or-play? or ?fair-share? laws. This advisory examines the Ninth Circuit?s decision.

See full advisory for more information.