## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3377 520 S OUT H M I CHI GAN A VENUE A S S OC IAT ES, L TD ., d /b/a T HE C O NG RESS P LA Z A H OTEL & C ONVE NT I ON C ENTE R, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
C ATHERINE S H A NN ON, D ire c to r of t h e Illino is D ep ar tm en t o f L ab or , D efend a nt-A pp ellee, an d
U NIT E H ER E L OC AL 1, Interv eno r-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C4552

—Jo an H umph ryL efk ow, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 19, 2008

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 15, 2008

Befo re M A NI ON, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. 52 0 S. M ich iga n A ve n u e A ss oc iat es , L t d ., d o in g b u sin es s a s T h e C on gr es s P laz a H ot el &2 N o. 07

- 3377 Conventi on Center( “Congr ess P l aza” ) , sued the Dir ecto r ofthe I l l i noi s D ep ar tm ent o fLabor( “I l l i noi s”) , se eking a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that I l l i noi s s tatute 8 20 I LC S 140/3. 1, th e H o te l Ro o m Att en dan t Am en dm en t ( “A ttenda nt Am e nd men t ” ) t o the On e Da y Re s t i n S e v e n Act, 8 2 0 I LCS 1 4 0 /1 et . s eq . , i s u n c on st itu tio n al. U n ite H er e L oc al 1 , a l aboruni on, i nter vened and to gether w i th I l l i noi s m ove d to dism i ss pu rs uant to Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12 ( b) ( 6)

. The di str i ct cour t g ra nted the defe nd ant’ s and i nter venor ’ s m oti ons to d is m i ss , r ej ec tingCo ng r es s Pl az a’ s ar g um en ts tha t th e A tte nd ant Am endm ent was pre em pted by the N ati onal LaborRel ati ons A ct ( “N LR A ”) , 29 U

. S. C. § 1 51 ets eq . , a nd vi ol ate d i ts du e pr oce ss and equal protect i on r i ghts. Co ng r e s s P l a z a a pp e a l s . Be c a us e the At t e nd a ntAmen dm ent i s pre em pted by the N LR A , we re ver se.

I. C on g r e s s P laz a is loc at ed on M ich iga n A ve n u e in C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , i n C o o kC o u n t y . C o n g r e s s P l a z a , e mplo ys, am ong othe rs , r oo m attend ants w ho cl ean guest ro om s. The U n ite H er e Loca l 1 unio n ( “U ni te H er e”) r epr es en ts th e ap p roxim ately 130 room atten dan tswork ing at Congre ss Pl aza, as w el l as se ver alhund re d ro om at te nda nt s wor k i nga t o th erCo o k Cou nty ho te l s. As o fthe d ate of oralargum en t, C ong ress Plaza and U nite H ere’s l ate st col l e c t i v e b a r g a ininga g r e e men t( “CB A ”) had expir ed o n D e c e mb e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 2
. S i nc e J u n e 2 0 0 3 , U n i t e H e r e me mbe r s ha ve e ng ag ed i n a wor ks to ppag e whi l e ne g o ti at i ng a ne w CBA

. Co ng r es s Pl az a ha s co nt i nue d to abi de bythe te r m s o fthe e xpi r ed CBA , r equi r i nga wor kda y o fe i g ht producti ve hours and provi ding m eal s fre e ofcharge to i tsN o. 07

- 3377 3

Und erc ur re ntl aw, I l l i noi s e xe m pt s s eve n c at eg or i es of 1 em pl oye es fro m the m anda t ed re s t day: “( 1) Par t
- t i m e em pl oyees w hose t otal w ork hours for one em ployer d uring a cal endar week do n ote xc ee d 20 ; an d ( 2) Em pl oye es n eed ed i n c as e of breakd ow n ofm achine ry o r equi pm ent or otherem ergency re qui ri ng the i m m edi at e s er vi c es ofe xpe ri en c ed a nd c om pet en t l abort o pr eve nti nj ur y t o p erso n, dam age t o pr ope rty, or s u s p e n s i o n o fn e c e s s a r y o p e r a t i o n ; a n d ( 3 ) E mp l o y e e s e mployed i n ag ri cu lture or coal m ini ng; and ( 4) Em ployees en g ag ed in the occ u p atio n of can nin g an d p ro cessing p erisha b le agric ultural p rodu ct s, i fs uch em ployees are e m ployed by an em pl oye r i n such oc c upat i on on a s ea s ona l bas i s an d f or no t m or e tha n 20 w eek s d u ring an y calen d ar yea r o r 1 2 m on th p er i o d ; an d ( 5) E m p loy ees em p loy ed as w atch m en or secu rity guar ds ; a nd ( 6 ) Empl oy e e s who a r e e m pl oy e d i n a bo na fi de ex ec ut i ve, adm i ni s t ra t i ve, or pr ofes si ona l c apa c i t y ori n the capacity ofan outs ide s ale sm a n , a s defi ned in Sec ti on 12 ( a) ( 1) of the fed era l Fa ir L ab or Stan d ard s A ct, as am en d ed , an d tho se (co n tin u ed ...) ro om at tendants, al ong w i th cl ean a nd sa ni tar y f aci l itie s. Con g r es s Pl az a al so c us to m ar i l y pr o vi des o ne hal f

- ho ur unp ai d l unch brea k. I n the m i dst o fCongr ess P l aza’ s negot i ati ons w i th U ni te H er e, the I l l i nois leg i sl atur e pass ed the H ote l Roo m Att en dan t Am en dm en t ( “Att en dan t Am en dm en t” ) to the One Day Rest i n S even A ct. The One Day Res t in Se ven A c t w as orig in ally en a c t e d in Ju ly 1 93 5 a n d cu rre n tly p r o v i d e s th a t “ [ e ] v e r y e mp l o y e r s h a l l a l l o w e v e r y e mplo yee except thos e speci fi ed i n thi s Se cti on at lea st t we nty - f o urc o ns e c ut i v e h o ur s o fr e s ti n e v e r y c al endar w eeki n additi on t o the r egul ar p er iod o fr estal l owed at th e cl o se o fe ac h wo r k i ngda y . ” 8 20 I LCS 14 0/2. The One 14 N o. 07

- 3377

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 em p loy ed as s uper vi s or s as defi ne d i n S ec t i on 2( 11 ) ofthe N ati onal Lab or Relati ons Act, a s am ended ; and (7) Em ployees who ar e em pl oye d as cr ew m em ber s ofan y uni ns pec t ed t owin g v es se l, a s d efined by Secti on 2101( 40) ofTit le 46 ofthe Un it ed St at es Cod e, o per at i ng i n a ny n avi gabl e wate rs i n o r al ong the bou nd ari es ofthe St ate ofIl li nois
. ” 820 I LC S 140/2. “Thi s Se c t i on does not appl y t o em pl oye es w ho m oni t or 2 ind iv id u a ls w ith d ev elop m en tal d isab ilities or m en tal illness, or both, and w ho, i n the course ofthos e du ti es , are requir ed to be on call d uring an ent ir e 8 hour wo rk period; how ever, thos e em pl oye es s hal l be al l owed to ea ta m ea l duri ng the 8 hour w o rk p er io d w h ile co n tin u in g to m o n ito r t h o se in d iv id u a ls.” 820 ILCS 140/3. Day Resti n Se ven Act further pr ovi des: “Ever y e m plo yer sh al l pe r m i t i ts em pl o y ee s who ar e to wor kf o r 71⁄2 c o nt i nuo us ho ur s o r l o ng er, ex ce pt th o se spe ci fi ed i n th i s S ec ti o n, at l eas t 2 0 m i nutes fora m eal p er iod beg i nning no l ate r tha n 5 h o ur s a ft e r the s t a r to fth e wo r kp e r i o d. ” 8 2 0 I LCS 2 140/3. The sect i on m andati ng a 20- m i nute m eal peri od “d oes not ap p ly to em p loyees forw hom m eal period s are est abl i shed thro ugh the col l ecti ve bar gaini ng pro cess . ” Id. T h e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t t o th e O n e D ay R es t in Se ve n A c t p ro vid es , in fu ll: § 3

. 1. H ote l r oo m at tendants. ( a) A s use d i n thi s S ecti on, “hote l r oo m at tendant” m eans a per son w h o cl eans orputs i n or der guest ro om s in a ho telo r othe r est abl i shm ent l i censed f ortr ansi ent o ccupancy.N o. 07

- 3377 5

O nly on e cou nty ou t of the 10 2 c o u n t i e s in Illinois

— Cook 3 C ou nty

— ha s a po pu l a t i ono fm or e tha n thr e e m i l l i onpe ople. A s ofthe 2000 c ensus , Cook Cou n ty ’ s pop ulati on w as 5 ,37 6 ,74 1

. S eehtt p: //i llino isgis.ito. state.il. u s/censu s200 0/cou nty_ c en s us . as p?c t =P0 01 00 01 ( l as tvi s i t ed Augus t15 , 20 08 )

. DuPage Co unty has the next h ig hestpop ulati on base, but as of2000, n o t e v en o n e m ill io n p eo p le re sid ed th er e. Id. ( b) Thi s S ecti on a pp l i es onl y t o hotel s a nd o ther est abl i shm ents l i censed f ortr ansi ent o ccupancy that ar e l oca ted in a county w i th a popu l ati on gr eat erthan 3, 000, 000. 3 ( c ) No t wi th st a n d i n ga n y o th e r p r o v i s i o n o fl a w, ev er y h ot el ro om a tt en d an t s h all re c eiv e a m in im um o ft wo 1 5- m i nut e pai d res t br ea k s an d o ne 30- m i nute m ealper i od i n eac h w or kday o n w hi ch the ho telr oo m at tendant works atl eas t 7hour s. A n e m plo yerm ay not re quir e a ny hot elr oo m a t t e nd a ntt o wo r kdu r i nga b r e a kp e r i o d. (d ) E ve ry em p loy er of h ot el ro om a tt en d an ts sh all ma k e a v a i l ab l e a ta l l t i me s a r o o m o n t h e e mpl o y er ’ s pr emi se s wi tha dequa te seat i nga nd tabl es f orthe purpose o fa llow i ng hot elr oo m at te nda nt s to enj o y b r ea kpe r i o ds i n a c l ea n a nd c o mf o r t ab l e e nv i r o nme nt
. T he r o o m s ha l l h a ve cl ean drinki ng waterpro vi ded witho ut char ge. (e) E ac h em p loy er o fh ot el ro om at te n d an ts sh all kee p a com ple te and accura te re cor d ofthe bre ak peri ods o fi ts hote l r oo m at tendants.6 N o. 07

- 3377 ( f ) A n em plo yer w ho vi ol ate s thi s S ecti on s hal l pay to the ho telr oo m att endant 3 t i m es the ho telr oo m att endant’s r egul arhour l y r ate o fp ay for e ach w orkd ay d uring w hich the req uired bre aks w ere no tp r o v i de d. ( g ) I ti s un l a wfu l f o r a n y e mp l o y e r o r a n e mplo yer ’ s a gent orr epres entat i ve to tak e a ny ac ti on aga i nst a ny per son in r eta l i ati on f orthe exer ci se ofr i ghts und er t h is S ecti on. I n any ci vi l pro ce edingb r o ug ht un derthi s su bs ec ti o n ( f ) , i fthe pla i nti ffes tabl i shes that he o r she was em plo yed b y th e d efe n d an t, ex er c ise d rig h ts u n d e r t h is S ec ti o n, o r al l eg ed i n g o o d f ai ththa t th e defen dan t w as n ot co m ply i ng with thi s S ecti on, and w as ther eafterte rm i nated, dem ote d, oro ther w i se p en aliz ed by th e d efe n d an t, th en a re b u tt ab le presum pti on shal l ari se that the defendant’s act i on w as taken i n re tal i ati on f orthe exer ci se ofr i ghts e s t ab l i s he d b y thi s S e c t i o n. To r e b utthe p r e s umptio n, th e d efe n d an t m u st p ro v e th at th e s ole re aso n f orthe ter m i nati on, dem oti on, o r penal ty was a l eg i ti m at e bus i ne ss r ea so n. ( h) In a d d i ti on t o the r em edi es provi ded i n Se ctio n s 6 an d 7, a p er so n cla im in g v iola tio n of th is Se c tio n sh all b e e n tit led to all rem ed ies av aila b le und erl aw o r i n equi ty, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to dam age s, bac k pay, r ei nstat em ent, o r i nj uncti ve rel i ef

. A ny per son ter m i nated i n vi ol ati on o fthis Se cti on shal l re cove r tr ebl e hi s or her l ost nor m al daily c om pensati on a nd fringe b enefi ts, to getherN o. 07

- 3377 7

w i th i nter estther eon, and any conse q uenti al d am ages su ffered by t h e em p loyee. Th e cou rt shal l award re aso nabl e a tto rney ’ s fees and cos ts to a pre vai l i ng pl ai nti ffin a n enf or cem ent a cti on unde r thi s S ec ti o n. 82 0 IL C S 1 40 /3 .1 Aft erthe I l l i no i s l eg i sl atur e pas se d the Att en dan t Am en dm en t an d the g o ve r no r s i g ned i t i nt o l aw, the I ll inois H otel and Lod ging A ssociation fi led a d eclaratory j udg m en t ac ti o n in s ta te c o ur t ag ains t the Di r ec to r o fthe I l l i no i s Depa r tmento fLabo r, s ee k i ngt o ha ve the Att en dant A m endm ent d eclar ed unconsti tuti onal

. The st ate t r i a l c o u r tg r a n t e d th e I l l i n o i s D e p a r t me n to fL a b o r s u mmar y j ud g men t, c oncl ud i ngtha tthe At t e nd a ntAmen dmen twa s n o tp r e e mpt e d, an d tha tthe At t e nd a ntAmen dm ent di d not v i ol ate the I l l i noi s Const i tuti on’ s pro hibi ti on on s peci all egis l ati on o r the pl ai nti ff’ s r i ght t o equal p ro te c tio n . Il l. Hotel & Lodging A ss ’n v
. Ludw ig, N o. 05CH13 79 6, * 10 ( Ci r cui t Co ur t o fCo o kCo unty, I l l i nois). T h e Illino is a p p ella te co u rtaffirm ed

. Se eIl l

. Hot e l & Lo dgi ng A ss ’n v. Ludw ig, 8 69 N
. E

. 2d 8 46 (I ll

. A p p . C t. 1st D ist. 2007). T h e Su p re m e C ou rtof Illin ois d ec lin ed to h ea r th e Illino is H ot el a n d L od gin g A ss oc iat ion ’s a p p ea l. Il l. Hotel & Lodg ing Ass’ n v. Ludw ig, 875 N
. E

. 2d 1111 (I ll

. 2007). W hi l e the I l l i noi s Hoteland Lodgi ng Ass oc iatio n’s cas e wa s ma k i n gi t s w a y th r o u g h t h e I l l i n o i s s t a t e c o u r ts y s t e m, Co ng r e s s P l a z a , wh i ch is no ta me mbe r o ftha tt r a de o r g an i za ti o n, fi l ed i ts o wn cha l l en g e to the Att end ant A m endm ent in fede ra l co urt. Congr ess Pl aza ar gued that the Attendant A m endm ent is p re em pted by the N ati onal8 N o. 07

- 3377

Congr es s Pl az a doe s no tpur s ue i t s § 30 1 L M RA pr ee m pt i on 4 claim on ap p eal. M or eo v er, w hile C on g ress Pla za s t a tes in its St at em en tofthe Cas e thati t“a l s o c l ai m s the am en d m en t vi ol at es the spe c i al le gi s l at i on pro vi s i on ofthe I l l i noi s Cons t i t utio n an d co n sti tu te s a n ar b itr a ry le g isl a tiv e c la ssi fic a tio n,” A pp el lantBr. at 2, i t does not pres ent thes e c lai m s in i ts Is sues (co n tin u ed ...) LaborRel ati ons A ct ( “N LR A ”) , 29 U

. S. C. § 1 51 ets eq . , a nd sect i on 3 01 ofthe L ab orM anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct ( “LM RA ”) , 29 U

. S. C. § 1 85( a)

. Congr ess Pl aza al so al l ege d that the Attendant A m endm ent v i ol ate d i ts d u e pr oce ss an d e qua l pr o te ct i o n r i g ht s, a s wel l a s pr o vi si ons o fthe I l l i no i s C ons ti tu ti o n. Co ng r es s Pl az a so ug hta pe r m an en t i nj unc ti o n pr o hibi tinge nf o r ce m en t ofthe Att en dan t A m endm ent. I l l i noi s a nd U ni te H er e fi l ed separ ate m ot ions to di s mi s s u nd e r F e d. R

. Ci v . P

. 12( b ) ( 6 )

. I l l i no i s a l s o fi l e d a m o ti o n t o di smi ss unde r F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 2(b) ( 1) , c l ai m i ng E leve nth A m endm ent i m m unity fro m the sta te cl ai m s. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the de fen dants’ m oti ons to dism i ss Congre ss Pl aza’ s pre em pti on a nd equalpro tect i on an d d u e p ro c es s c laim s. 520 S. M i ch igan Ave
. A s s oc . , Lt d. v. Shan non , 2 00 7 W L 2 72 8757a t * 8- 11 ( N
. D. Il l. 2 00 7)

. The distric t co urt then decl i ned j uri sdic ti on o verCongr ess P laz a’s st at e la w cla im s. Id. at *11

. C ongr ess Pl aza appeal s.

II. O n appe al, Co ng r es s Pl az a ar g ue s th atthe NLRA pr ee m pts the Att en dan t Am en dm en t. W he th erthe NLRA 4N o. 07

- 3377 9

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 Pr es en t ed F or Revi ew. Con g ress Pl az a a l s o doe s no tm ake an y ar gum en ti n s up p or tofi t s s t at e l aw cl ai m s . Acc or di ngl y, C o n g r e s s P l a z a h a s wa i v e d a n y a r g u me n t b a s e d o n s t at e l a w. S ee H il d eb ra n d t v. Ill . D ep ’t of Natu ra l R es., 34 7F .3d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 5 n .6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03 ) ( hol di ng thatwhena par t y pr es en t s no ar gum en ti n i t s br i efwith r es pec tt o a par t i c ul ar c lai m , an y a rg um en ts w ith re sp ec t to th a t c la im ar e w a iv ed ). W hen the quest ion offederal preem ption ofstate l aw i s at 5 is sue, s tat e and f ederal courts, p er haps not s urpris ingly, m ay re ac h st ar kl y d i ver ge ntv i ews on the Uni t ed S t at es Cons t i t ut i on, as i l l us t ra t ed m os tc l ea rl y i n G eier v. A m erica n Hon d a M oto r C o., 52 9 U. S. 861 ( 20 00 )

. I n G ei er, the Su p rem e C ou rt he ld tha t a state t or tc l a i m a ga i ns tHon da f orf a i l i ng to p r ov i de a dr i ve r ’ s s i de ai r bag was pre em pt ed by a fede ra l r eg ul at i on. Pr i or t o the Sup rem e C ourt’ s ruli ng, every federal ci rcui t which cons idered the i ss u e h ad held tha t the state la w w as p reem p ted , w hile st ate courts unif o rm ly hel d to the contrar y

— thatfederal law d id n o t p re em p t st a te la w . G ei er, 529 U.S

. at 866. preem pts the A tte nd ant A m endm ent i s a pu re l ega l qu estion and th erefore w e review th e d istri ct c o u r t’s d ec isio n d e n ov o. Se eCanno n v . Edgar, 33 F. 3d 880, 88 3 ( 7th Cir

. 19 94)

. M or eov er, o ur de no vo re vi ew is not l i m i ted by th e s ta te co u rt ’s d ec isio n inIl l

. Hot e l & Lo dgi ng Ass’n v. Ludw ig, 8 69 N. E. 2d 84 6, ho l di ngtha t th e Att en dan t Am en dm en t i s no t pr ee m pte d b y the N LRA. W e “ o we[ ] no defe re nce t o sta te- cour t inter preta ti on o fthe U ni ted S tat es Consti tuti on. ” T

MJ Im plants, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc. , 4 98 F. 3d 1175 , 11 81 ( 10th Cir

. 20 07) ( ci ti ng AceCyc l eWor ld, Inc . v . A m . Ho nd a M o to r C o ., 7 88 F.2d 122 5, 1228 ( 7th Cir. 1986)). 510 N o. 07

- 3377 O ur review of p reem p tion begins w ith th e C ons titution ’s Su p re m ac y C lau se . Se eCanno n , 3 3 F

. 3d at8 83

. The S uprem acy Clause pro vi des: This Consti tuti on, and the Law s of the U ni ted Sta tes w h ich sh all b e m ad e in P u rs u an c e t h e r e of; an d all Tr e a t i e s ma d e , o r wh i c h s h a l l b e ma d e , u n d e r t he Au th o r i t y o fth e U n i t e d S t a t e s , s h a l l b e th e s u p r e me Law o fthe Land ; and the J ud ges i n eve ry St ate shal l be b o u n d th e r e b y, a n y T h i n gi n t h e Co n s t i t u t i o n o r L a ws ofany St ate to the Contrary no tw i thsta nd i ng. U. S

. Co ns t. ar t. VI, c l

. 2
. Thu s, unde r Art i cl e VIo fthe Con st i tu ti o n, fede r all aw i s th e “s up rem e Law o fthe Lan d,” an d “ i t pr ee m pts s ta te l aws tha t ‘ i nt er fer e wi th, orar e co ntra ryto , fe d erall aw . ’ ” B o o m er v. A T& T C o rp ., 30 9 F

. 3d 40 4, 4 17 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( quo tingH i l l s b or ough C ounty v . A utom ated M edic al Laborator ie s, Inc. , 471 U

. S. 707, 712 (1985)). I n M et ropolit an LifeIns. Co
. v. M assachus et ts , 47 1 U.S

. 72 4 ( 1985 ) , th e Su prem e Cour t s um m ar i zed the tas k c ourt s f ace w hen confro nted wi th the i ssue ofpre em pti on, st ati ng: I n deci ding w h et her a federa l l aw pre - em pts a sta te st at u te , ou r ta sk is to as c er ta in C o n g r e s s ’ int en t in enacting the federa l sta tute at i ssue. Pre- em pti on m ay be e i therexpre ss or i m pli ed, and i s com pel l ed w hether C o n g r e s s ’ c o mma n d i s e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n t he sta tute’ s l anguage o r i m pli ci tl y c ontained i n i ts str ucture and purpose. Id. at 738 (i nt erna l qu otations om itted ).N o. 07

- 3377 11

A thi r d p r e e m pt i ondo c t r i ne , ba s e d on § 30 1 o fthe LMRA, 6 “pre- em pts st ate law only i nsof ar as res oluti on ofthe s tat e- law c l ai m r equi re s the i nt erpr et at i on ofa c ol l ec t i ve-bar gai ni ng agreem ent
. . . . ” L i n glev. Norg e D i v. of M agic C hef

, 486 U.S

. 399, 410 n. 8 ( 1988)

. Cong res s Plaza argued t o t h e dis tr ic t c ourt that § 301 preem pts th e A tt endan t Am endm ent, but as noted ab ov e, i t d oe s no t pu rsu e tha t arg u m en t on ap p eal. As the Supr eme Cou r t r ec en tly e xpl aine d i n Cham b e rs of Comm e r c ev . Brown , 1 28 S .C t. 24 08 (20 08 ), “th e N L R A its elf conta i ns no express p re em pti on pro vi si on. ” Id. at24 12. Thus , the i ss ue f ac i ngus i s o ne o fi m pl i ed pr ee m pti o n. W i th i m pli ed pree m pti on, a sta te l aw s houl d be s usta in ed “u n les s itco n flict s w ith fed er al la w or w ou ld frustrat e the fed eral schem e, or un less the cou rts d iscern f ro m the tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces that Cong ress so u gh t t o oc c u p y t h e fie ld to th e e x c lu si o n o ft h e St at es .” M al one v. Whi t eM ot orCorp. , 435 U

. S. 497, 504 (1978 ). Further, i n the conte xt o fthe N LR A , a sta te law i s pre empte d b y i m pl i ca ti o n i fi t co nfl i ct s wi ththe un der l y i ng goa l s and pol i ci es ofthe N LR A o r sta nd s “ as an o bsta cl e t o the a ccom plish m en t a nd exec uti on o fthe fullpurposes an d ob j ec tiv e s ” of C on gr es s. Li vadas v. Br ads haw , 512 U

. S. 107, 120 (1994) ( intern al quo tation om itted ). F r o m th e s e g e n e r a l p r e e mp t i o n p r i n c i p l e s , th e S u p r e me Court has deve l oped two re l evantN LR A pre em pti on d oc tr in es : Garmon pr e e mpt i o n a nd M achinis ts pr ee m pti o n. Se eSa n Diego Bldg. Tr ade s Counc i l v. Gar m on , 35 9 U.S

. 23 6 (19 59 ); M ac hi ni s ts v. Wi s co ns i n Em pl oym e ntRe l at i ons C om m ’n , 427U .S

. 1 32 (19 76 ). T h e firs t d oc tr in e, Garmon 6 pr ee m pti o n, s ee k s to pr ev en t con fl i ct s be twe ens ta te a nd12 N o. 07

- 3377 l oca l r egul ati on a nd Con gr ess’ s integr ate d schem e o f r e g u l a t i o n e mb o d i e d i n S e c t i o n s 7a n d 8 o fth e NL R A. Garmon , 359 U .S. at 2 44 -45

. Garmon pre em pti on further see ks to prot ect the NL RB ’ s pri m ar y j uri sdic ti on i n case s in vo lvin g s ec tio n s 7an d 8 of t h e N L R A

. Id. Se eal s o L i vadas v. Br ads haw , 512 U

. S. 107, 117, n.11 ( 1994 ). T h e s ec on d rele va n t N L R A p re em p tio n d o c t r in e is M a ch inists p re em p tio n . Se eM ac hi ni s t s v. Wi s . Em pl oym e nt R el a ti ons Co m m ’n , 4 2 7U

. S

. 1 3 2 ( 1 9 7 6 )

. A s th e S u p r e me Cou r t ex pl aine d i n M et ropo li ta n Lif e, 471 U .S. 72 4, th is “s eco nd pre - em pti on doct rine pro tect s a gainst s tat e i nter fer ence w i th pol i ci es i m pli cate d by th e s tr ucture of th e A ct i tse l f, bypre - em pti ng st ate l aw and sta te causes ofact i on co ncer ni ng co nd uct that Con gr ess i ntended to be unr egul ate d.” Id

. a t 74 9. Thi s pr eem p ti o n do ct r i ne g o ve r ns “ pr ee m pti o n que st i o ns tha t a r o se c o nc erni ng acti vi ty that w as nei therar guabl y pr ote cted ag ai nst em plo yeri nter fer ence by §§ 7 and 8( a) ( 1) o fthe N LR A , nor ar guably pr ohibi ted as an unf ai r l abor pract i ce by § 8 ( b) o f tha tAc t
. 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 5 7, 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a nd ( b )

. ” Id. T h u s, in M achinis ts , t he Courthel d “that a S tat e m ay not penal i ze a co ncer ted r efusalto work ove rt i m e that wa s nei ther prohibi ted norpro tect ed und erthe N LR A , f or‘ Congre ss i ntended that the co nd uct i nvol ve d be unre gul ate d because [ i t] l eft [ the c ond uct] ’ to be contr ol l ed by the fre e pla y o feco nom i c f or ces. ” M et ropolit an Life, 471 U

. S. at75 0 ( quoti ng M achinis ts , 427 U

. S. at 140)

. W hi l e ini ti al l y, M a ch inists preem pti on s ought “to dete rm i ne wh ether cer tai n w eapons of bar gaini ng nei ther prot ecte d b y § 7 no r f o rbi ddenb y § 8 ( b) c o ul d b e su bj ec t to s ta te r egul at i o n, [ i ] t has bee n used m or e r ecent l y t o deter m i ne the val i dityN o. 07

- 3377 13

o fs tate ru les o fg en er ala ppl i ca ti o n tha t affec t th e r i g ht to bar gain orto self

- or gani zati on. ” M et ropolit an Life, 47 1 U. S

. a t 74 9 n. 27( in te r na l c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. As the S upr eme Co ur t r ec en tly e xpl aine d i n Br own , “ M achinis ts pre em ption i s ba sed o n the prem i se that Congre ss str uck a b ala n c e o f p r o t e c tio n, pr oh ibit ion, an d laiss ez -fair e in r es pec t to uni o n o r g an izati o n, c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng, a nd l abordi sputes. ” Br own , 12 8 S

. Ct. a t 2412 ( i nter nal quotati ons om i tte d). W e a lso elabor ate d on the concept of M a ch inists pr ee m pti o n in Cannon , ex p lain in g th at th is doctr i ne “pr ohibi ts sta te an d m unici pal r egul ati ons of ar ea s t h at C on gr es s l e f t to th e fre e p lay of ec on om ic f or ces. ” Cannon , 3 3 F

. 3d at 88 5 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns a nd citations om itted ). Con g r es s Pl az a ar g ue s th atthe Att en dan t Am endm en t i s pr eem pte d b y b o th M achinis ts p r e e mpt i o n a nd Garmon pr ee m pti o n. At o r al ar g um en t, th o ug h, i n r es po ns e to o ur query, Congr ess Pl aza ackno w l edged thati t be l i eve s M achinis ts pre em pti on the st ro ngero fthe tw o ar gum ents. W e a gr ee . SeeM et ropolit an Life, 47 1 U. S

. at 75 1 ( co ns i der i ng w hethera sta te l aw es tablish i ng m i ni m alm entalheal th be ne fi ts i n ins ur an ce pl an s was pr ee m pte d by th e N LRA an d st at in g t h at “[a ]ll p ar tie s c or re c tl y u n d er st an d th is case to i nvol ve M achinis ts p r e - e mpt i o n ”)

. T h e r e f o r e , we begin w i th Congr ess Pl aza’ s a rgum ent that M achinis ts preem pts the A tte nd ant Am endm ent. Congre ss Pl aza argues M achinis ts pr ee m pts the Att en dan t Am en dm en t be ca us e th e Att en dan t Am en dm en t “int r ude s o n the pa r ti es ’ c o l l ec t i v e b a r g a in ingpr o ce ss ” an d al ter s the “fre e pla y of eco nom i c f or ces. ” In response ,14 N o. 07

- 3377 Illino is a n d U n ite H er e (h er ein aft er co llec t i v e ly “ ap p ellee s” ) arg u e t h at th e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t is a m in im um l aborst andard and as s uch i s no t p re em pted by the NL RA , ci ti ng M e t r op ol i t an L i fe, 47 1 U. S

. 7 2 4 a nd Fo rt Ha lifa x, 482 U

. S. 1. I n M et rop o li ta n Lif

e, 47 1 U.S

. 72 4, two i nsurance com pani es ( “appel l ants” ) , wh i ch i ssued gr oup-hea l th i nsurance pol i ci es i n M as sachuset ts, ar gued that a M ass achusett s sta tute re quir i ng “a ny g ener alheal th- i nsurance pol i cy th atpr o vi des ho spi ta l a nd s ur g i ca l c o ve r ag e, o r a ny b en efitp lan th at h as s u c h co ve ra ge , to p ro vid e a s w ell a cer tai n m i ni m um o fm ental

- heal th pro tecti on, ” was p re em p te d by E R IS A a n d th e N L R A

. Id. a t 73 0. The appe l l an ts i n M etrop o lita n L ife argu ed that“[ b] ecause w elf ar e be ne fi ts a r e a m an dat o r y s ubj ec t o fb ar g aini ng und erthe l aborl aw , . . . the N LR A pre - em pt s a ny st ate at te m p t t o im p os e m in im u m -b en efit te rm s on th e p ar tie s.” Id. at75 1- 52. The S upr eme Cou r t r ej ec te d thi s ar g um en t, c o nc l udi ng th at“ [ t] he e vi l Co ng r es s was a ddr es sing[ w ith the N LR A ]

. . . was en tir el y unre l ate d to l oca l o r federa l re gu lat ion es ta b lish in g m in im u m te rm s o f em p loy m en t.” Id. at75 4. A ccor dingl y, the Court hel d that “ [ n]o i ncom patibi l i ty exi sts , ther ef or e, betw een federa l r ule s desi gned to r e s t o r e the e qu a l i t y o f b a r g a i ning po we r, a nd s t ate o r federa l l egi sl ati on that i m poses m i ni m alsubst anti ve re quir em ents on co ntra ct te rm s neg oti ate d between p arties to l abor agreem en ts, at least so l ong as t h e pu rpose ofthe sta te l egi sl at i on i s no t incom patibl e with these gener al goa l s o fthe N LR A

. ” Id. at 754-55. Th e C ou rtN o. 07

- 3377 15 furtherexpounded o n the m eani ng o f m in i m um st ate l aborst andards, st ati ng the y “ affect unio n and nonu ni on em pl o y e e s e qu a l l y, a nd n e i the r e nc o ur a g e n o r di sco ur ag e th e co l l ec ti ve -ba r g aini ngpr o ce ss es tha t ar e th e su b j ect ofthe N LR A

. N ordo they ha ve any b ut the m ost i nd i re ct effect on the r i ght o fse l f

- or gani zati on e stabl i shed i n the A ct. ” Id. a t 75 5. “ M o sts i gni fi ca nt l y, ” co nt i nue d the C ou rt, there w as “n o sugg estio n i n the legisl ative history o fthe [ N LRA] th atCo ng r es s i nt en ded to d isturb th e m y r i ad st at e l aws the n in e xi st en ce tha t set m i ni m um l ab o r s ta nda r ds, b utwer e unr el at ed i n a ny w ay to the proce sse s of bar gaini ng or sel f

- or gani zati on. ” Id. at75 6. Rather, the Court “bel i eve [ d] that Congr ess devel oped th e fr a m ew ork forself-organization an d coll ective ba rgaini ng o fthe N LR A within the l ar gerbo dy ofst ate l aw prom oting publ i c heal th and safety
. ” Id. T h e S u p r e me Co ur ta dde d: Feder all aborl aw i n thi s s ense i s inter sti tial, supplem en tings ta te l aw wher e co m pat ibl e, a nd s uppl an ting i t only when i t pr ev en ts the a cc o m pl i sh m en t o fthe pu rpos e o fthe fed er al A ct. Thus the Court has r eco gni zed thati t ca nnot decl ar e p re - em pted al l l oca l r egul at i o n tha t to uch es o r c o nc erns i n a ny waythe com ple x inter re l ati onshi p between em p loy ees, em plo yer s, an d uni o ns ; o bv i o us l y, m uch o f th i s i s l eft to the S t a t e s . Wh e n a s t a t e l a w e s t a b l i s he s a min i ma l e mplo ym ent s tandard noti nconsi ste n t w i th the ge nera l l eg i sl at i ve g o al s o fthe NLRA , i t co nfl i ct s wi thno ne ofthe pu rpos es ofthe A ct. Id. at 756-57 (i nt erna l qu otation om itted ).16 N o. 07

- 3377 The Suprem e Court then appli ed the af or em enti oned pr i nc i pl e s t o the c a s e a th a nd a nd h e l d: M ass achusett s’ m andated-be n efi t l aw i s a n i nsurance r egul at i o n de si g ne d t o i m pl ementthe Co m m o nw eal th’ s pol i cy on m ental

- heal th car e, and as s uch i s a va l i d a nd un ex ce pti o na l ex er ci se o fthe Co m m o nw e a l th’ s po l i c e po we r . I t wa s de s i g ne d i n pa r tto en su r e th atthe l es s wea l thy r es i den ts o fthe Co m m o nw eal th w oul d b e provi ded adequate m ental

- heal th trea tments ho ul d the y r equi r e i t. Tho ug h [ th e i ns ura n c e s t a t u t e ] , l i k e ma ny l a ws a ffe c t i n gt e r ms o fe mplo ym ent, pote nti al l y l i m i ts an e m plo yee ’ s r i ght t o choos e o ne thi ng by requi ring that he be provi ded with som eth ing else, i t d oes not l im it the ri gh ts of sel fo r g an i za ti o n o r c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ngpr o te ct ed bythe N LR A , and i s no t pr e- em pted by the A ct. Id. at 7 58. A ccor dingl y, the Suprem e Cour t hel d that M ass achusett s’ m andated-be nefit l aw i s no t pr eem pted b y t h e N L R A

. Id. J us t two y ea r s l ate r, i n For tHal i f ax Pac ki ng Co. v. Coyne, 48 2 U. S

. 1 ( 19 87 ) , the S uprem e Cou r t ag ain a ddr es se d the i ss ue o fthe r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n “ m i ni m um l ab o r s ta ndar ds” a nd preem pti o n. I n For tHal i f ax , an e m plo yer chal l enged a M ai ne st atut e re quir i ng em plo yer s t o p ro vid e s ev er an c e p ay to ce rt ain em p loy ee s. Id. a t 5. Em plo yees q u al i fi ed i fthei r em plo yer s l ai d off10 0 o r m or e e m plo yee s, o r re l oca ted m or e than 10 0 m i l es aw ay, so l ong as the e m plo yee had w or ked atthe pla nt atl eas t th re e y ea rs . Id. S ev er an ce pa y was no t r equi r ed i fthe em plo yee acc epted em plo ym ent at the new plant l oca ti onN o. 07

- 3377 17

o r i fa c o nt r ac t wi ththe em pl o y ee a ddr es se d the i ss ue of s ev er an c e p ay . Id. For t H al i f ax argued the state l aw was preem pted because , w h ile i t di d not di re ctly r egul ate eco nom i c ac ti vi ty, i t ind i re ctl y u n dercut the c ol l ecti ve b ar ga i n i n g p ro c es s. Id. at20
. The S up re m e Cour t fi rs t no te d tha t it ha d r ej ec te d i n M et ropolit an Lifethe a r g um en t “tha t a S ta te ’ s es tabl i sh m en t o fmin i m um s ubsta ntiv e la b or st an d ar d s u n d er c u ts co llec tiv e b ar ga in in g . . . .” Id. at20
. The Cou r t the n expl aine d i ts hol di ngi n M et ropolitan Lif e, n ot in g, am on g ot h er th in gs “t h at th e N L R A is co nc erne d wi th en su r i ng an equi tabl e bargai ni ng proce ss, notwith the subst an tiv e t er m s that m ay em er ge f ro m such ba rg ai ni ng. ” Id. Aft erthe Co ur t i n For tHal i f ax fur the r expl a i ne d M e t r opolitan Li

fe, the Court sta ted that [ i ] t i s t rue that the M ai ne st atute g ive s e m plo yee s som ethi ng f orwh i ch theyo ther w i se m i gh t h ave to ba r g ai n. Tha t i s true , ho wev er, wi thr eg ar d t o a ny st at e l aw tha t su bs ta nt i ve l y r egul at es e m pl o y m en t condi ti ons. Both e m plo yer s a nd em plo yee s com e t o the b ar gaini ng tabl e with r i ghts und erst ate l aw that f or m a “back drop” f orthei r nego ti ati ons. Id. a t 2 1. The Co ur t r ej ec te d the c l ai m o fpr ee m pti o n, sta ti ng “the m er e f act that a st ate st atute per tai ns to m at te rs o verwh i ch the parti es ar e fre e t o bar gain cannot su ppo r t a c l ai m o fpr e- empti o n, f o r the r e i s no th i ngi n the N L R A

. . . w hich exp ressly f orecloses a ll state regu latory po wer s wi thr es pec t to tho se i ss ue s . . . tha t m ayb e th e subj ect o f co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng. ” Id. at21

- 22 ( i nter nal qu otation om itted ).18 N o. 07

- 3377 The S upr eme Co ur t i n For t H a li f ax c o nc l ude d tha t th e M ai ne s t a t ut e “ i s no t pr e - e mpt e d b y the NLRA, s i nc e i ts est abl i shm ent o fa m i ni m um l aborst anda rd does not i m per m i ss ibl y i nt r ude upo n the c o l l ec ti ve -ba r g aini ng proce ss. ” Id. at23

. The S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec isi ons i n M et ropolit an Lifea nd For tHal i f ax s ta nd f o r se ve r alpr o po si ti o ns . F i r st, the NLRA is c on c er n ed p rim ar ily w ith es t a b lish in g a n eq u ita b le process fo r bar gaini ng, and not the s ubstanti ve ter m s o f b ar ga in in g. For tHal i

f ax , 48 2 U.S

. at20; M et ropolit an Life, 471 U

. S. at75 3- 54. Se cond, a sta te l aw i s no t pr eem pted by th e N L R A m erely becau se it r egu late s a m an d atory su bj ec t o f ba rg ain in g. Fo rt H a l i f ax , 482 U .S. at 2 1; M e t r opo l i t an L if

e, 4 71 U

. S. at75 7. A nd thi rd, the N LR A does no t pr ee m pt a st at e law w hi ch“ es tabl i sh es a min i m um l aborst andard that does not i ntrude upon the c oll ecti vebar gaini ng pro cess . ” For tHal i f ax , 48 2 U .S

. at 7; see also M et ropolitan Life, 47 1 U.S

. at75 4- 55 ( “N o i ncom patibi l i ty exi sts , ther ef or e, because federa l r ule s desi gned to re sto re t h e e quali ty ofbar gaini ng power, and sta te or federa l l egi sl ati on that i m poses m i ni m alsubst anti ve re quir em ents on co n tr act ter m s neg oti ate d between parti es to l aborag re em ents, at l eas t so l ong as the purpos e ofthe sta te l egi sl ati on i s no t incom pa tibl e with thes e gen eral goal s of th e N L R A

. ”). A gainst thi s ba ckdro p, then, we re turn t o the par ti es’ ar gu men t s . As n o t e d ab o v e , Co ng r e s s P l a z a c l a i ms that the Attendant A m endm ent i s pre em pted by M achinis ts be ca us e i t “intrud es o n the pa r ti es ’ c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng p ro c es s” an d alt er s t h e “ fre e p lay of ec on om ic fo rc es .” InN o. 07

- 3377 19

r es po ns e, b as ed o n M et ropol it an Lifea nd For tHal i f ax, appell ees cl ai m that the A tte nd ant Am endm ent i s a mi ni mum l ab o r s t a nd a r d a nd i s thu s n o tp r e e mpt e d. Con g r es s Pl az a r ej ec ts thi s ch ar ac teri za ti o n o fthe Att en dan t Am en dm en t ( as a min i m um l ab o r st an dar d) , r ely i ng o n thi s co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Cannon

. I n C a n no n, a g r av edi g g er s’ uni o n, a uni o n mem be r, a nd uni o n l ea der s su ed the S ta te o fI l l i no i s, c l ai m i ngtha t th e Bur i alRi g ht s Act was pr ee m pte d b y the NLRA a nd th er efo r e vi o l at ed th e Su pr emac y Cl au se o fthe Co ns ti tu
tion
. C a nnon , 33 F. 3d at 881. The Buri alRi ghts A ct r equir ed cem ete ri es’ m anage m ent and l aboru ni ons to agr ee to es ta b lis h a p oo l of w or ke rs w h o w ou ld p ro vid e re ligio u sly req u ire d int er m en ts d u rin g a lab or d isp u te
. Id. at 88 2. A dd i ti onal l y, the Bu ri alRi ghts A ct pr ovi ded that “[ t] he f ai l ure ofa c em ete ryautho ri ty ora l aboruni on t o n eg oti ate i n go od f ai th to es tabl i sh a poolo fworke rs as provi ded [ i n the A ct] co nsti tutes a w i l l ful vi ola ti on o f thi s S e c t i o n, ” i n whi c h c a s e the c o ur ts ha l l “ g r a nta pp r opr i at e r el i ef, i nc l udi ng. . . an awar d ofat to r ne y ’ s fee s an d the i m posi ti on o fa fi ne notto exce ed $1, 000 f orea ch i nter m ent which i s found to ha ve been del aye d i n vi ol at i o n o fthi s S ecti on. ” Id. a t8 8 2 n . 1 ( qu o t i ng8 2 0 I LCS 135/2.1). A fter setting for t h th e govern ing law , this cou rt hel d that the Buri alRi ghts A ct was pre em pted by b oth Garmon p r e e mpt i o n a nd M a ch inists p re em p tio n . Id. at88 5. W e ex pl aine d tha t “the Bur i al Ri g ht s Act i s a di r ec t i nt r usi on b y the s t a t e i nt o the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i ningp r o c e s s. The Bu ri alRi ghts A c t pu rpor ts to re gul ate a parti cul ar ter m o fthe bar gaini ng pro cess

— that ofa poolo fw or kers

— and, furtherr equi re s the par ti es to act u al l y a gr ee on20 N o. 07

- 3377

a par ti cul arpo o l o fworkers o r f ac e sa nc ti o ns a t th e hand s o fthe I l l i noi s co urts
. ” Id. a t 88 4. The c o ur t i n Cannon hel d “the NL RA does nottol er ate this ki nd of i nvasi on by a s tat e into the c ol l ecti ve bar gaini ng pro cess . . . . ” Id. Cannon furtherhel d that the Buri alRi ghts A ct was pre
em pted by M achi n ists , b ec au se i t “int r ude [ d] o n the coll ective ba rgaining p rocess i n a variety of w ays; i t orde rs th e p ar tie s t o n eg ot iat e a s t o a sp ec ific s u b st an tiv e c on d iti on

— that ofa poolo fw or kers to perf or m i nter m ents du ring l abordi sputes. A nd , m or e invasi ve, the Bu ri al Rights Act or ders the par ti es to agr ee on a poo l o fworke rs , orf ace sancti ons f ora f ai l ure to do so

. ” Id. at88 5. A pp el l ees ar gue in re sponse that Cannon i s di st i ng ui sh

ab l e be ca us e t he st atut e ati ss ue i n Cannon , the Bu ri al Rights A ct, re quir ed the parti es to bar gain col l ecti vel y o ver th e i ss ue of a po o l o fwor k er s, wher ea s th e Att en dan t A m endm en t does not m andate ba rg ai ni ng, but i nstea d est abl i shes a m i ni m um l aborst andard w h ich does not interfere w ith th e c oll ective barga ining p rocess . H ow ever, th i s i s a d i s t i nc t i o n wi th o u ta d i ffe r e n c e . A s th e S u p r e me Court re centl y e xplai ned, “[ i ] n N L R A pre - em pti on ca ses , j ud i ci alco ncer n has nec essari l y focuse d on the nature o f the a cti vi ti es w hi ch the St at es have so ught t o re gul ate , ra therthan on the m etho d ofr egul ati on a dopted.” Br own , 12 8 S. Ct. at24 14 ( i nter nal quotat i ons om i tte d). W hat a st ate cannotdo di re ctl y, i t a l so cannot do i nd i re ctl y. Id. at 2415

. The que st i o n the n i s whethe r th e Att en dan t Am en dm en t est abl i sh es a m i ni m um l aborst andard that does not i nter fer e with col l ecti ve bar gaini ng. I fso , then the r egul a-N o. 07

- 3377 21 ti on ( dir ect or i nd i re ct) i s perm i ssibl e. To address wh ether th e Att en dan t Am en dm en t es tabli sh es a min i m um l aborst andard, we turn a gain to t he S up re m e Cour t. U n for tu n at ely , th ou gh , th e Su p re m e C o u rt ’s g u id an c e is spa r se . I n M et ropolit an Life, the Court m er el y no ted that m i ni m um l aborst andards “affe ct uni on a nd nonuni on em plo yee s e qually, and nei th er enco urag e no r disco ur ag e th e co l l ec ti ve -ba r g aini ngpr o ce ss es tha t ar e th e subj ect ofthe N LR A

. ” 4 71 U

. S. at 7 55. The Courtadded that m ini m um l aborst andards have o nl y “ the m ost i nd i re ct e ffect on the r i ght o fse l f

- orga n izat i on e stabl i sh ed i n the Act

. . . [an d ] are no t l aws de si g ne d t o e ncour age or disc oura ge em plo yee s i n the prom otion o f thei r i nter est s co l l ecti vel y . . . . ” Id. ( quoti ng Barre nt i ne, 45 0 U

. S. at 739 (em p ha sis in th e ori ginal))

. W hi l e the A tte nd ant Am endm ent f aci allyaffects uni on an d n o nuni o n e m pl o y ee s equa l l y, f o r s ev er alr ea so ns w e c on c lu d e t h at it d oe s n otco n st itu te a ge n u in e m in im um l abor sta nd ar d. Fi rs t, unli ke the sta tutes at iss u e in M et ropolitan Lifea nd For tHal i f ax , the At t e nd a ntAmen dm en t i s no t a st atut e o fge ne r alappl i ca ti o n. I n M e t r opol i t an Life, the sta te l aw ati ssue did notr egul ate em plo ym ent, but r atherr egul ate d i nsurance policies and i t a pp l i ed to all “ ge n er al h ea lth -in su ra n c e p olic [ies ]” a n d “a n y b en efit pla ns. ” M etrop o lita n L ife, 47 1 U .S. at 7 30 . Sign ifica n tly , in M et ropolitan Life, the Co urt c har ac te r i ze d the l aw a s o ne of ge n er al a p p lica tio n, sta tin g: “C on gr es s a p p ar en tly d id not cons ider th e qu estion of w he th er state law s of ge ne r al appl i ca t i on affecting te rm s o fco l l ecti ve-bar gaini ng ag re em ents subj ect to m andator y b ar gaini ng were to be pr eem pted. ” Id. at 7 53 (e m p h as is a d d ed ). Se eal s o L i vadas , 51 222 N o. 07

- 3377 U

. S. at12 3 n. 17 ( sta ti ng tha t “ Congre ss i s u n d er stood to h av e leg isla te d a ga in st a b ac kd ro p of ge n er ally ap p lica b le [s ta te ] l ab o r s ta nda r ds” )

. I n For tHal i f ax , the sta te’s severance s tatute a pp l i ed to al l em plo yers w ho l ai d off10 0 or m ore em p loyees (or relocated 100 or m ore m il es aw ay). For tHal i f ax , 48 2 U.S

. at5. W hi l e no t uni ver salin appli cati o n ( sinc e i t o nl y a ppl i ed to la r g erl ay o ff s o r di st an t r el o ca ti o ns ) , the st atut e s ti l l had a v ery b r o ad appl i ca ti o n. Se e, e . g. , Carpe nt e rs Lo ca l U ni on N o. 26 v . U .S. F i de l i ty & Guar
. Co. , 21 5 F

. 3d 136, 14 5 ( 1stCi r. 20 00) (stati ng, i n the c o nt e xto fER I S A pr e e mpt i o n, tha ta l a w o fg e ne r a l a pp lica t i o n “a p p lies to a su fficie n tly br oa d , su fficie n tly gen erali zed un iverse of situat ions”). Other ci rcui ts l i kewis e cha ra cter i ze “m i ni m um l abor st an d ar d s” as law s of ge n er a l a p p lica tio n . Se eCham b e rof Com m e r cev. Br agdon , 64 F .3d 49 7, 50 3 (9th C ir. 19 95 ) (“T h is i s a lso not the type o fr egul ati on o fge nera l appli cati on that ass ures thatc er ta i n cov er age pro vi si ons be incl ud ed i n all he al thi ns ur an ce c o nt r ac ts, s ucha s i n M e t r opol i t an Life; nori s i t the ty pe ofr egul ati on s eek i ng to a ll evi ate a par ti cul arha r dsh i p s ucha s pl ant cl o sing s th ata ffec t th e em p loy ee s an d th e c om m u n ity .”); B a rnes v. Sto ne C o nta iner Corp
. , 9 4 2 F

. 2 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ T h e S u p r e me Court has uphel d stat e s tatutes w hi ch, al thou gh they affect em p loyees co ver ed by col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em en ts, are statu tes of ge neral appl i ca b i l i ty and do not p rim ar ily ‘re gu lat e re lat ion s b et w ee n em p loy ee s, th eir u n ion, an d th eir em p loy er .’ ” ) (em p h as is in orig in al) ( quoti ng N ew Yo rk Tel. Co . v. New Yo rk Sta te D ep’t. o f La bo r, 44 0 U .S. 51 9, 53 3 (1 97 9)); H ul l v. D ut t on , 93 5 F

. 2d 1194, 11 98 ( 11th Cir

. 19 91) ( hol ding that A l abam a’ s l onge vi ty payN o. 07

- 3377 23

The st atute by i ts te rm s app li es to any county w ith a pop ula- 7 t i on o f thr ee m i l l i on or m or e, butas no t ed above , outof 10 2 c oun ties, on l y Coo k c ounty ha s the r equi s i t e num ber of resid en ts. sta tute i s not a “m i ni m um lab orstandard” i n partbec ause the “ sta tute appli es onl y t o i ts own em plo yee s and not to i ts ci ti zens ge n eral l y”)

. The A tte nd ant Am endm ent, how eve r, does nothave the gener alapplic ab i l i ty see n i n these case s. Rather, i t appli es to onl y one oc cupati on (room at t e n d an ts), i n on e ind us try (the hot el ind us try), i n o ne c o unty ( Coo kc o unty )

. These l i m i ta ti o ns di st i n- 7 g ui shthe Att en dan t Am en dm en t m at er i al l y fr o m the st atut es o fg en er al appl i ca ti o n c o ns i der ed i n M e t r opolitan Li

fea nd For tHal i

f ax. Th e a pp e l l e e s a r g ue tha tmi ni mum l a b o r s t a nd ar ds that apply onl y to parti cul ar occupati ons, i nd ustr i es o r c at eg or i e s of em p loy er s h av e s u rv ive d p re em p tio n ch allen ge , citin g a se rie s o f ca se s. See A pp el l ee B r. at20

- 21 c itin g a m on g ot h er s, For tHal i f ax , 4 82 U.S. a t 5 , 2 0 ( pl an t closing law that ap p li ed to l ayoffs w ith 1 0 0 or m ore em p loy ee s n otp re em p te d ); D il li ngha m v. Sonom a C ounty, 1 9 0 F

. 3 d 1 034, 1 0 4 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( mi ni mum s t a nd a r ds that applied onl y t o apprenti ces i n ski l l ed const ructi on t r a d e s n otp re em p te d ); Vicero y G o ld C o rp. v. A ubry, 75 F. 3d 482, 48 5, 49 0 ( 9th Ci r. 199 6) (overt i m e r egul ati on ap p lyin g on ly to m in er s no t p re em p te d ); N at
. Br oadc as t i ng Corp
. v. Br ads haw , 70 F.3d 69, 71-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (Calif orni a r egul ati on a pp l yi ng o nl y t o bro ad c ast em plo yee s no t p r e e mp t e d ) ; a n d Wa s h. Se r v. Cont r ac t ors Coal i t i on v.24 N o. 07

- 3377

A p p ellees no ted p ar en the tically tha t Was hi ngto n Ser v. C ont ra c- 8 tors , 54 F .3d 811 , he ld a “lo cal o rd ina nc e ap p lyin g on ly to j anit orial contrac tors not preem pted.” A pp el le e Br. at 21. Cont ra ry t o Appel l ee s ’ as serti on, ho wever, the s t atut e ati s s ue i n Washington Serv. C o n tr a ctors , 54 F. 3d 811 w as not l im it ed to j anit orialcontr act ors, b ut app li ed to pers ons wh o perf orm ed “f ood , j anit orial, m aint enance, or nonprofe ss ional heal th c are se rvice s. ” Id. at 814. D is tr ictof Colum bia , 5 4 F

. 3d 81 1, 819 (D.C

. Ci r . 1 99 5)

. The 8 appell ees furtherr el y o n the N i nth Cir cui t’ s dec isio n i n Ass oc i at e d Buil de rs & Cont r ac t ors of So
. Cal

. , Inc . v. N unn , 356 F.3d 979, 990 (9th Cir. 2004), w he rein the cou rt st at ed th at“ st at e su bs ta nt i ve l ab o r s ta nda r ds, i nc lud i ng m i ni m um wages, ar e no t invalid s i m plybec ause they apply to parti cular trades, pro fess i ons, o r j ob cl ass i fi catio n s ra th er th an th e e n tir e la b or m ar ke t.” Unl i k e th es e ca se s, tho ug h, the Att en dant Am en dm en t i s n o tj us tl i mi t e d b y t r a de

— i t i s al so l i m i te d b y l o ca ti o n; th e At t e nd a ntAmen dme nti s a s t a t e s t a t ut e tha ta pp l i es on ly in on e c o u n ty in Illin ois

— Cook county. That f act dist i ngui shes thi s ca se f ro m the ser i es ofcas es c ite d by A pp el l ees , inc luding N unn ; the Att en dan t Am en dm en t i s not j ust l i m i ted to a parti cul artr ade, pro fess i on, o r j ob cl a s s i fi c a t i o n ; i t i s a l s o a s t a t e s t a t u t e l i mi t e d t o o n l y o ne ofI l l i noi s’ 10 2 co unti es. M or eo ve r, w e fin d th e N in th C ir c u it’s d ec isio n in Brag don b et te r rea sone d. I n Brag don , 6 4 F

. 3d 49 7, the Cha m be r o f Comm er ce s ue d a Ca l i f o r ni a co unty a nd county offi ci al s, chal l engi ng an ord i nance that r equi re dN o. 07

- 3377 25

em plo yer s t o pay “pr evai lin g w age s” to em plo yee s o n p riv at e c on st ru c tio n p roj ec ts co st in g ov er $5 00 ,00 0. Id. at 498. The Ordi n an c e stated thati ts pu rpos e was “t o prom ote sa fe co nstr ucti on, m i ni m i ze the r i sk ofacc i dents o n i nd ustr i alproj ects , pre vent er osi on o fthe w age scal e, an d a l l evi ate th e bur deno n the Co unty ’ s he al tha nd w elfa re s er vic es a n d la w e n for c em en t, c au se d by low -p aid w or ker s. ” Id. The “pre vai l i ng wages” w er e defined by the California Departm ent o fI nd ustr i alRel ati ons, wh i ch deter m i ned the “ preva i l in g wage” “by re fer ence to est ablish ed co llec tiv e b ar ga in i n g a gr ee m en ts w ith in th e loc ali ty. ” Id. at49 8- 99. M ore sp eci fi cal l y, “[ t] he Di re cto r uses f or m ula s that a ver age the w age s a nd bene fi ts f or each c ra ft pursuant to col l ecti ve-bar gaini ng ag re em ents appli cabl e in each l aborm arke t.” Id. a t 50 2. Underthe Ordinance, co nstr ucti on c om panie s were re quir ed to ag re e t o pay the st ate
- deter m i ned prevai l i ng wage b efo re t h e C ou n ty w ou ld iss u e a bu ild in g p er m it. Id. at49 9. The Cham bero fC om m er ce a rgued that the Ordi nance w as p re em p te d by th e N L R A

. Id. The county responded th atthe pr ev ai l i ngwag e o r di nanc e was a “ m i ni m um l aborst andard” and as such w as not preem pted. A fter expla i ni ng g ener alpre em pti on p rin ci ple s, the M achinis ts do ct r i ne , and summ ar i zingthe Supr eme Cou r t’ s dec i si o ns i n M et ropolit an Lifea nd For tHal i f ax , th e N in th C irc u it hel d that the Ordi nance e stab li shi ng the pre vai l i ng wage f or co nstr ucti on work er s was pre em pted by M achinis ts
. Id. at50 4. I n so hol ding, th e N i nth Cir cui t co ncl ud ed that th e o r di na nc e was “ al so v ery di ffer en t f r o m a min i m um w ag e la w , a pp lica ble to a ll em plo yees , guar antee i ng a m in im um hour l y r ate
. ” Brag don , 64 F .3d at50 2 ( e m p h as is26 N o. 07

- 3377

W hi l e the pan eli n Nunn e x p r e s s e d d i s a g r e e me n tw i th s o me 9 asp ects of its N inth C ircu i t c o l leag u es’ earlier d ecision in Bragdon , s e e Nunn , 356 F. 3d at99 0, the re wer e t wo dis t i ngui s hi ng fea t ur es i n Bragdon th a ts e p a r a t e d i tfr o m Nunn

. A s Nunn rec ognized, “Co ngress authori zed st ates to es tabl is h app rent ic es hi p s t andard s and t o r eg ul at e the c ondi t i ons gove rn i ng the i m pl em en t at i on ofappr en t i c es hi p pro gr am s , whethe r the (co n tin u ed ...) add ed). The Brag don c o u r t a l s o s t r e s s e d th a tt he Ordinance at i ssue w as “m uch m or e invasi ve . . . than th e isol ated statu tory prov isi ons of ge ne r al app l i ca t i on appr o ve d i n M etrop o lita n L ife a nd Fort Hal i f ax . ” Id. The co ur t i n Brag don r e a s o ne d: T h is is also n ot th e typ e of re gu lat ion of gen er al a p p lica ti o n tha t as su r es tha t ce r ta i n c overa g e pr o vi si o ns be incl ud ed i n al l h ealth i nsurance contr acts , such a s i n M etrop o lita n L ife; nori s i t the ty pe of re gul ati on see ki ng to al l evi at e a par ti cul arhar dship such a s p l a ntcl o s i n g s th a ta ffe c tth e e mp l o y e e s a n d th e c o mm unity. Thi s Ordi nance, by cont ra st, se ts detai l ed m i ni m um wage and benefi t pack age s, di stinct f or each c ra ft invol ved i n cer tai n l i m i ted co ns tructi on proj ects
. This m i ni m um var i es f ro m ti m e- to- ti m e a s new ave ra ges a re cal cul ate d. The dis tr i ct c ourtnot ed th a tu n l i k e th e l a w u p h e l d i n M etrop o lita n L ife, the Ordi na nc e i s m o r e pr o per l y c ha r ac te r i ze d a s ane xam ple of an i nter est gr oup deal in p ubl i c- i nter est cl othi ng. Id. at 503 (i nt erna l qu otation om itted ). 9N o. 07

- 3377 27

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 appr en t i c es wer e worki ng o n p u b l i c or pr i vat e proj ec t s , ” a nd thi s “di ffer en t i at es Cal i fo rn i a’ s appr en t i c es hi p r eg ul at i ons f ro m the Cont ra Cos t a Co u nty ordi nan c e ati s s ue i n Bragdon .” Nunn , 356 F .3d at99 0- 91

. The c our ti n Nunn fur the r di s t i ngu i s he d B ra g d on , rea son ing “[s] eco nd an d equ ally im p or tan t, unl i ke i n the c as e ofthe Cont ra Cos t a Co unty or di nan c e ati s s ue i n Br agd o n, h e r e c on t r a c t or s m a y c ompl e t e l y a vo i d the a ppl i c abi l i t y ofthe Cal i f ornia appr en t i c es hi p r eg ul at i ons ” by not h ir in g ap p re n tic es . Id. at 991. Lik e the Brag don co urt, we fin d t he l ack ofge nera l ap p lica tio n in t h e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t s ign ifica n t. In e xe mpt i ng“ mi ni mum l a b o r s t a nd a r ds ” f r o m t he p r e e mptiv e fo rc e o f th e N L R A , M et ropolit an L ifea nd For tHal i f ax bo thi nv o l ve d l aw s o fg en er ala ppl i ca ti o n a nd the S u p r e me C o u r th a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d “ mi n i mu m l a b o r s ta nd ar d s” as law s of ge n er al a p p lica tio n . M et ropolit an Life, 47 1 U .S. at 7 53 ; For tHal i f ax , 482 U

. S. a t 5. The Att en dan t A m en d m en t’s n ar ro w sc op e d i st in gu ish es it from m in imum l ab o r s t a nd a r ds wh i c h a r e n o ts ubj e c tt o p r eempti o n, a n d p l a c e s th e At t e n d a n tAme n d me n ti n th e “ zo ne p ro tect ed and re ser ved f orm ar ketfre edom

. ” Br own , 12 8 S. Ct. at24 12 ( quoti ng Buil di ng & C ons t r . Tr ade s Counc i l v. A ss ’n. B uilde rs & C ontract ors of M ass. /R
. I. , Inc. , 50 7 U.S

. 21 8, 227 (1993 ))

. The A tte nd ant Am endm ent’ s narr ow sco pe ofappli cati on a l so ser ves as a di si ncenti ve to col l ecti ve bar gaini ng. As the S upr eme Cou r t ex pl aine d i n M etrop o lita n L ife, a m i ni m um l aborst and ar d shoul d “nei therenco urag e no r di sc o ur ag e th e co l l ec ti ve -ba r g aini ngpr o ce ss tha t ar e th e28 N o. 07

- 3377

Uni t e H er e l obb i ed for the At t en dantAm en dm en t
. The 10 app el le es argue i ts l obb ying is i rrel evant, because “[ f ] ed er al pre em pt i on d oct ri ne e val uat es whatl eg i s l at i on does , no twhy leg islator s vo ted f or it or w ha t p olitical co alition s led to its en ac t m en t
. ” Appe l l ee Br. at 27( quo t i ng N or t her n Il l

. C hapt erof A ss o c . B u ild er s & C o n tr a c to rs v . L a v in , 431 F. 3d 1004, 1007 ( 7th Cir

. 20 05 ))

. W e ag ree th at U nite H ere’s l ob b y ing is ir r e l e v an t, bu twha ti s r e l e va nti s thatthe l a w di s c ou r a ge s c ol l e c t i ve bar gai ni ng. The legi sl ati ve d ebate s how s thats everal s tat e l egis lat ors 11 re co g n iz ed th is in ce n tiv e. S ee, e.g ., I L S. Tr an. 20 05 Reg. Se s s . No. 44 , Se nat or Ros kam ( “The s e f ol ks , i fthe y wa nt to win f ai r and square, by go ll y go nego ti ate. Put i t on the t able and negotiat e. Look o ne an othe r i n the e ye an d bar g ai n. Sa y we’ re no tgoi ng to d o th is j ob un less yo u giv e u s these fifteen m inu tes or tw en ty m i nut es or ha ve our s m oke br ea ks or ta ke a di etC oke b re ak or w h a te v er y o u w a n t to d o , b u t w e o u g h t n o t d o th is.” ); I L S. Tr an. 20 05 R eg . Sess. N o. 45, Sen ato r Pa nk au ( “T he m ai n i tem in thi s pa r t i c ul a r bi l l i s thi s i s a ba r ga i nabl e i s s ue . I t has been barg a i ne d b e f or e . I th a s be e n pr e s e nt e d man y t i m e s be f or e thi s pa r t i c ul a r l a bo r un i on . S o, why are

— i f the y can ’ t get it in th eir ow n n eg otia tion s, w hy are th ey com ing d ow n h ere to u s to p u t it in to la w ?” ). subj ect ofthe N LR A

. ” 4 71 U

. S. a t 755. Yet by passi ng a st atut e wi ths ucha na r r o w f o cus ( o ne o cc upa ti o n, i n on e i nd ustr y, i n one coun ty), ther e s eem s t o be a di si ncenti ve to col l ecti ve bar gaini ng and i nstea d enco urag em ent for empl o y e r s o r un i o ns t o f o c us o n l o b b y i ng a t the st ate 10 capi tali nstea d ofnego ti ati ng atthe bar gaini ng tabl e. 11 T h e N in th C irc u i t ex p lain ed th is p h en om en on in Brag don , 64 F .3d 49 7 (9 th C ir. 19 95 ). A s n ot ed ab ov e, inN o. 07

- 3377 29 Brag don , the N i nth Cir cuit s tr uck an Ordinance est abl i shi ng a p re va i l i ng wage f orcer tai n pri vate co nstr ucti on p roj ec ts
. Id. at49 8. I n st riki ng the Ordi nance, the N i nth Cir cui t no ted thatthe sam e o r si m i l arj usti fi cati ons f or th e exe rcise of p oli ce p ow er i n on e bu siness or ind us try “co uld be advanced f orm ostany busi ness ori nd ustr y. ” Id. at 504. The N i nth Cir cui t r eco gni zed the i m pact, st ati ng: A prece dent al l owing thi s i nter fer ence w i th th e fr ee pla y o feco nom i c f or ces coul d be e as ily appli ed to o th er bus i ne ss es o r i ndus tries i n est ablishing parti cul arm i ni m um w age and benefi t pack age s. This coul d redi re ct e ff or ts ofem plo yee s no t t o bar gain w i th em plo yer s, but i nstea d, to see k t o set m i ni m um wage and benefi t package s with pol i ti cal b o d i e s . Thi s c o u l d i n v o k e d e fe n s i v e a c t i o n b y e mpl o y er s se ek i ngt o o bt ain c aps o n wag es in v ar i o us busi ness es ori nd ustr i es. Thi s co uld be j usti fi ed as an ex ercise of p oli ce p ow er on com m un ity w elf are gr ounds ofl oweri ng co nstr ucti on co sts to at tr act bus i ne ss t o the a r ea o r l o wer i ngc o st s to c o ns um ers so as to m ake pro du c ts or ser vi ces m or e a vai l abl e t o the g ener alpubli c. Thi s s ubsti tutes the fre e- pla y o f pol i ti calforc es f orthe f re e pl ay ofeco nom i c f or ces th a twa s i n t e n d e d b y th e NL R A. Id. at50 4. A dd i ti onal l y, wh i l e o n i ts f ace thi s l aw appli es to unio n and non-uni on e m plo yee s e qually, the st atute ’ s nar ro w ap p lica tio n e q u at es m or e t o a be n efitfor a ba rg ain in g u n it th ana n indi vi dualpr o te ct i o n. W hi l e no t al l r o o m a ttendan ts i n Co o kco unty ar e uni o ni ze d, by re g ul at i ngonl y o ne30 N o. 07

- 3377 county the s tat e m ake s i t pos sibl e t o targe t uni on- heavy counti es ( oruni on- l i ght c ounti es) , and thus r ew ar d ( or p u n i s h ) u n i o n a ct i vi t y . I l l i n o i s ’ a p p r o a c h fu r th e r a l l o ws no n- uni o n empl o y ee s t o ben efi t fr o m the b ar g aini ngo fthe unio n w hi ch to ok pla ce, not at the b ar gaini ng tabl e, but at th e l eg i sl atur e. I n Brag don , the N i nth Cir cui t hel d that M achinis ts pre em pted an O rdi nance w hi ch “t ar get s par ti cula r w or ker s in a p ar ti cul ari nd ustr y a nd i s deve l oped an d r ev i se d fr o m the b ar g aini ngo fo th er s, a ffec ts the bar gaini ng pro cess i n a way that i s incom patibl e with the g ener algo al s o fthe N LR A

. ” Brag don , 64 F. 3d at 504. The One Da y Re sti n S ev enActfur th ers ho w s t ha t th e A tte nd ant Am en d m en t i s no t atr ue m i ni m um l abor st an dar d. As n o te d abo ve , pr i o r to pa ss ag e o fthe Att en da ntAmen dme nt, the On e Da y R e s ti n S e v e n Acta l r e a dy estab li sh e d a m inim um l abor stan d ard f or breaks, r eq uiri ng empl o y e r s t o p r o v i de o ne u np a i d twe nty - mi nu te m ealbr eak, al though thi s m and at e d id “not apply to em plo yee s f or w hom m eal peri ods are e stabl i shed thro ugh the col l ecti ve bar gaini ng proce ss. ” 820 I LC S 140/3. Tha t m i ni m um l ab o r s tandar d s ti l l a ppl i es i n I l l i no i s, b ut th e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t s et s a h igh er st an d ar d . I llin ois ar g ue s th atthe r e i s no r ea so n tha t i t ca nno t increas e th e m in im u m , bu t t h at is n otw h at Illino is did . Ra th er , I llin ois r eta i ne d i t s mi ni mum l a b o r s t a nd a r d a nd c r a ft e d a h igh er st an d a r d for a sp ec ific oc c u p at ion, in a sp ec ific i ndus try, i n a spe ci fi c co unty . I n ex pl ai nin g m i ni m um l ab o r s t a nd a r ds , the S up r e me Co ur t s po k e o f the l aw s a s es ta b lish in g a “b ac kd ro p ” fo r th eir n eg ot iat ion s. Fo rt Hal i f ax , 48 2 U.S

. at21

. The One Day Res t in Se ven Act es tabl i sh ed su cha s ta te
- wi de ba ck dr o p, whi l e t he Att en -N o. 07

- 3377 31 dant A m endm ent o ver ro de the l oca l bar gaini ng pro cess byi m po singc o nfi ni ngr equi r ement s o n o ne o cc up ati o n, i n one i nd ustr y, i n one county. M or eov er, the One Day Resti n Se ven Act exem pts fro m co ve r age empl o y ee s co ve r ed bya c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng agr eem ent that pr ovides f orbr eakr oo m s a nd m eal br eaks. The Att en dan t Am en dm en t do es no t co nt ain a sim ilar ex em p tio n . A s t h e Su p re m e C ou rte x p lain ed in For tHal i f ax , “[ t] he f act that the par ti es ar e fre e t o devi se th ei r o wn se ve r an ce pa y a r r an g ement s . . . s tr en g the ns the c ase thatthe sta tute w or ks no i ntrusi on o n col l ecti ve bar gaini ng [ because the St at e] has soughtto bal ance th e d esirabilit y o f a p articu lar su bsta nt ive l abor stan d ard a g a i n s tth e r i g h to fs e l f

- d e t e r mi n a t i o n r e g a r d i n gth e t e r ms and condit i ons ofem plo ym ent. ” For tHal i f ax , 48 2 U.S

. at22
. W hi l e a “s tatute that per m i ts no co l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ngo n a subj ect [ m ay] es cape N LR A pre em pti on, ” i d. , whenthe par ti es a r e no t f r ee t o de vi se the i r ow n ar r an g ement pr ee m pti o n a ppl i es b ec au se the st atut e i nt r ude s o n the co l l ec ti ve ba r g aini ng pr o ce ss . Tha t i s es pec i al l y true w here a si m i l arst atute o fge nera l appli cabi l i ty allo w s for such bar gaini ng, but the nar ro w l y t ar get ed l aw does not
. Furtherm ore, the A tte nd ant Am endm ent doe s no t quali fy a s a “m i ni m um ” l aborst an dard. “M i ni m um , ” a s u se d by th e Su p re m e C ou rt, i m p lies a low th r e s h o ld . In f ac t, i n M et ropolit an Life, the Su p rem e C ou rt sp oke of a sta te orfedera l l egi sl ati on th at i m poses “m i ni m alsubstanti ve re quir em ents on co ntra ct t er m s neg oti ate d betwe enpa r ti es t o l ab o r a g r ee m en ts
. ” 47 1 U. S

. a t 75 4. The Su pr e me Co ur ta l s o s po k e o fmi ni mum l a b o r s t a nd a r ds32 N o. 07

- 3377

Spe c i fi c al l y, 82 0 I LCS 1 40 /31

. ( g) pr ovi des : “I ti s un law ful f or 12 any e m pl oye r or ane m pl oye r’ s ag en tor r epr es en t at iv e t o t ake an y actio n a g ain st any p erso n in retalia tion f o r th e exer cise ofr i ght s unde r thi s Se c t i on. I n a ny c i vi l p ro ceed i ng br ought underthi s s ubs ec t i on ( f ) , i f the pl ai nt i ff es t abl i s he s thathe or s he w as e m p l o y e d b y the d efend an t, exer cised righ ts un d er th is Se c t i on, or al l eg ed in g oo d f ai th thatthe defen dantwas no t (co n tin u ed ...) as form in g t h e b ac kd ro p for n eg o t i a t ion s, For tHal i f ax, 482 U

. S. at 21, ag ai n i nd i cating a l ow-thr esho l d l aw wh i ch ser ves as a fl oo r. O u r si ste r ci rcui ts have l i kewis e r ead “m i ni m um l aborst andard” as a m i ni m alsubst anti ve im p ac t o n co n tr ac ts
. Se eBr agdon , 6 4 F

. 3d at5 00 ( statin g that “[ w ] hen a sta te l aw es ta b l i shes a m i ni m alem plo ymen ts t a nd a r d notinc ons i s t e ntwi t h thege ne r al l egi s l at i ve go a ls of th e N LR A , i t confl i cts w i th none of th e pu rpos es of t h e A c t” ) (em p h as is in orig in al); H ull, 935 F .2d at11 98 (n ot i ng tha t “ [ a] l though the S up re m e Cour t di d not defi ne whati t co ns i der ed to b e a ‘ m i ni m um l ab o r s ta ndard, ’ ” s uch statutes ar e “v al i d and un excepti onal exer ci se[ s] of the [ sta te’ s] pol i ce pow er, ” and a st ate “l onge vi ty pay st atute i s no t s uch a beast ”) ( i nter nal quotat ion o m i tte d). The A tte nd ant Am endm ent i s m uch m or e t h an a m er e b ac kd ro p to n eg ot iat ion s b e c au se it est a b lis he s term s of em p loym en t tha t w ou ld be very d ifficu lt for an y u n ion to ba rg ain for. Sp ec ifica lly, in add i ti on t o the r equi re m ent fortwo pai d fi ftee n-m inute br ea k s an d a n un pai d thi r ty
- m i nut e l unch b r ea k, the A tte nd ant Am endm en t cr eat es a pre sum pti on o fr eta l i ation an d shifts the bu rd en of proof t o the e m pl oyer. See 12N o. 07

- 3377 33

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 c ompl yi ng wi th thi s S e c t i on, a nd wa s the r e a ft e r t e r m i na t e d, dem ot ed, or othe rwi s e pen al i ze d by the defen dant, the n a re but t abl e pre s um pt i on s hal l a ri s e thatthe defen dant ’ s ac t i on w as ta k en i n ret ali ati on f or the ex erc is e ofri ghts es tabli shed b y this Sectio n. To reb u t the p resu m p tion , the d efend an t m u st pro v e th a tth e s o l e r e a s o n f o r th e t e r mi n a t i o n, d e mot i o n, or pen a lty w as a l egit im ate bu si ness reas on. ” Thu s, f or i nst ance, i fa h o t e l fi r e d a r o o m a t t e n da n tb e c a u s e th e r o o m a t t en dant f ai l ed t o c l ea n the r equi red d ai l y quot a o fr oom s , butthe r oom at t en dantal l eg ed thatthe r ea l r ea s on f or hi s or he r t er m i nat i on w as tha t he o r s h e h ad tak en the statu tor ily m an d ated b rea k s, 82 0 I LCS 1 40 /3.1 ( g) c re at es a pre s um pt i on ofr et al i at i on. The burd e n o f p r o o f wo u l d th e n s h i ft t o th e h o t e l t o p r o v e thatt he sole rea son f or th e term ina tion w as “a legitim ate b u siness re a so n .” At or al ar g u m en t, Uni t e H er e’ s at t or ne y s t at ed thatthe 13 p resu m p tion on ly a p p lies if the em p loy ee i s d isciplin ed w ithin (co n tin u ed ...) 820 I LC S 140/3. 1. W e a re a w are o fno l aw o r contr act that est abl i shes such a shi fti ng o fthe burden ofpro of, nor whi chr equi r es pr oof fro m the e m pl o y ertha t th e “sole re aso n, ” i d. , forany disc i plinarycond uct was a l egi ti m ate bus i ne ss r ea so n. M o r eo ve r, thi s pr esu m p ti o n a nd the sh iftin g of t h e b u rd en of p ro of a p p lies ind efin ite ly; it does not m att erhow l ong ago i t was thatan e m plo yee exer ci sed rights und erthe A tte nd ant Am endm ent o r a l l e g e d th e e m p l o y e r w a s n o tc o m p l y i n gw i th th e t e r ms o fthe Att en dan t Am en dm en t. Onc e ei th ero cc urs the defe nd ant- em plo yer w i l l fro m then on have the burden of proof. 1334 N o. 07

- 3377

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 13 ni ne t y days o f as s er t i ng thathi s e m pl oye r i s no tc om pl yi ng wi th th e t e r ms o f th e At t e n da n t Ame n dme n t
. Ho we v e r , f o l l o wing ora l arg u m en t, U nite H ere’s attorn ey sub m itted a letter to c or re c tth i s mi s s t a t e me n t, c o n fi r mi n g th a tth e At t e n dme nt Am en dm en t i n f ac t does not c ont ai n any t i m e l i m i t at i on on the presum ption ofret a lia ti on, as Cong res s Plaza’ s att orney had m ain tain ed d u ring ora l arg u m en t. I n a d d i t i o n t o s h i ft i n gt he bu r d e n o fp r o o ft o th e e mpl o y er, the Att en dan t Am en dm en t pr o vi des tha t, alo ng w ith ba c k p ay an d rein st at em en t, an em p l oye e te r m i na te d i n v iol at i o n o fthe Att en dan t Am en dm en t “shal l r eco vertr ebl e hi s o r her l ostnor m aldai l y c om pensati o n an d fr i ng e be ne fi ts , t o g ethe r wi thi nt er es t th er eo n, a n d a n y c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a mag e s s u ffe r e d b y th e e mplo yee . ” The Attendant A m endm ent furtherm andates the p a y men t ofcos t s a nd a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s . 8 2 0 I LCS 140/3. 1(h )

. These sta tutor y pr ovi si ons can i n no s ense be consi dered “m i ni m al

. ” C f. Brown , 128 S. Ct. at 241 0- 12, 24 16, 2422 ( hol ding that Cali f or ni a s tatute which pro hibi ted e mpl o y e r s tha tr ecei ve d s t a t e fun ds fr o m us i ngthe fun ds “to as si st, pro m ote , o r deteruni on o rg ani zi ng, ” was preem pted by M a ch inis ts , b ec au se the “ f o r m i dab l e en f o r c e me n ts c h e me , ” i n c l u d i n gr e c o v e r y o ft r e b l e d a mag e s , att or n ey ’s fe es , an d co st s, “p u t c on sid er ab le press ure on a n em plo yereith er t o fo rg o hi s fre e s peech ri ght t o c om m u n icate hi s v i ew s t o hi s e m plo yee s, o r el se to re fuse the r ecei pt of any sta te fund s”) ( i nter nal quotat i on o m i tt ed)

. Thi s i s es pec i al ly tru e whenc o ns i der ed i n l i g ht ofwh at I l l i noi s co nsi dered an appropriate m i ni m um f orN o. 07

- 3377 35

em plo yer s in the re m ai ni n g 10 1 c ounti es i n the One Day R est i n Se ven Act

— o n e u n p a i d t we n t y - mi n u t e b r e a k a nd no sh ifting of the bu rd en of p roof. I n re sponse, I l l i noi s a rgues that “ m i ni m um ” does not i mp l y a l o w th r e s h o l d , b u tme r e l y i s w h a t e v e r “ mi n i mu m” the S tat e d ecides i s a pp ro pri ate
. Thi s a rgum ent c l ashes w ith th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s t er m in olo gy , i .e., “ m i ni m al substa nti ve re quir em ents on co ntra ct t er m s neg oti ate d b et w een par ti es to l aborag re em ents. ” M et ropolit an Life, 471 U

. S. at75 4- 55 ( em phasi s a dd ed )

. Thi s a rgum ent a l so can not prev aili n t h e c ircu m stan ces of this case w he re I l l i noi s had adopted o ne tr ulym i ni m alr equi re m ent o f gener alap pli cati on, bu t an exponenti al l y higher m andate f o r a s pec i fi c o cc upa ti o n, i n a s pec i fi c i ndus try, i n o ne county. I l l i noi s a l so cl ai m s that be cause M achinis ts pre em pti on i s co ncer ned w i th the pro cess and not the s ubstanti ve te r m s o f the ba r g ain, the s ubs ta nt i ve r equi r ement s o fthe A tte nd ant Am endm ent a re i rr el evant
. Il l i noi s i s co rr ect that “[ t] he N LR A i s co ncer ned pr i m ar i l y with est abl i sh i nga n equi tabl e pr o ce ss f o r de te r m i ni ngt er m s an d condi ti ons ofem plo ym ent, and not w ith p ar ti cul arsubst an ti v e t e r ms o fth e b a r g a i n th a ti s s t r u c kwh e n the p ar tie s a re n eg ot iat in g fro m rela tiv el y eq u al p os itio n s.” M et ropolitan Life, 47 1 U

. S. at 753. H owever, m er el y b ecause a s tat e s tatute e stablish es a s ubstanti ve re quir em ent doe s not m ean that i t au tom aticall y avoids preem p tion. R ath er, to av o i d pr ee m pti o n the s ta te ’ s m i ni m um l ab o r s ta ndard mu s tn o tb e i n c o mpa t ib l e wi th th e g o a l s o fth e NL R A. SeeM et ropolit an L ife, 471 U .S. at 7 57 ; For tHal i f ax , 48 2 U

. S. at23

.36 N o. 07

- 3377 The mo re stringen t a state labor su bsta nt ive stan d ard, the mo r e l i k e l y i t i s th a t th e s t a t e l a w i n t e r fe r e s wi th t he barga ining p rocess . A nd as a stan d ard b e com es m ore str i ngent, the sta te, ata cer tai n p oin t, effecti vel y s ubst i tu te s i ts el fa s th e ba r g aini ngr epr es en ta ti ve. A s the N i nth Ci r cui t ex pl aine d i n Brag don : The Court has a l so cl ear l y hel d thata sta te’ s r equi re m ent o f“m i ni m alsubst anti ve re q uir em ents” o n con tract term s is not su ch a n interferenc e w ith th e barg aini ngpr o ce ss a s to b e pr e- emp ted

. The r e i s no doubt thati m posi ng subs tantiv e r equi re m ents does affect the b ar gainin g pr oce ss. Vi ew ed i n the extr em e, the s ubs ta n tive r equi re m ents coul d be s o re str i cted as t o v i r tu al l y di ct at e th e r es ul ts o fthe c o nt r ac t. The obj ecti ve of allo w i ng the bar gaini ng pro cess “t o be contr ol l ed by the fre e- pla y o feco nom i c f or ces” can be f rust ra ted bythe im p os i ti on o fsubst anti ve re quir em ent s , a s we l l a s b y the i nt e r fe r e nc e wi th the us e o f ec o no m i c w ea po ns . The que st i o n the n b ec o m es the extent of the substa nti ve re quir em ents that a state m ay i m pose on the bar gaini ng pro cess . Brag don , 64 F. 3d at 501. I n B ragdo n , the N i nth Cir cui t co ncl ud ed that “the Ord ina nc e [ es tabl i sh i ng a pr ev ai l i ngwag e] a ffec ts the b ar g aini ng p ro cess in a m uch m or e invasi ve and detai l ed f ashi on than the i sola te d st atuto rypro vi si ons ofge nera l appli cati o n a ppr o ve d i n M etr o p o lita n L ife a nd For tHal i f ax . ” Id. at 50 2. T h e c ou rtex p lain ed th at th e O rd in an c e is al so ver y di ffer ent fr om a m i ni m um w age l aw , appli cab le t o a ll em p loy ee s, gu ar an ty in g a m in im u m h ou rlyN o. 07

- 3377 37

r at e . T h i s O r d i n a n c e p r o v i d e s f o r s p e c i fi c mi n i m um w ag es an d b en efit s t o b e p aid to ea c h cr aft an d on ly to th os e w or ke rs w h o a re en ga ge d in t h e sp ec ific c on st r u c t ion p roj ec ts co ve re d by th e O rd in an c e. T h is is not a w age an d ben efi t pa cka g e tha t has been barg a i n e d f o r i n a n y f a s hi o n b y th e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n e mpl o y er s an d e m pl o y ee s, b utr athe r i s a m inimum wag e an d b en efi t pac k ag e thati s pr o m ul g at ed bythe Dir ec to r ofthe Dep ar tm ent o fI nd ustr i alRel ati ons of the Sta te ofC al i f or ni a a nd thati s deve l oped by aver agi n gth e b a r g a i n s s t r u c kb y o th e r e mp l o y e r s a n d e mplo yee s. Id. at50 2- 03. Like th e Or di na nc e ati ss ue i n Brag don , the Att en dan t A m endm ent “ affects the bar gaini ng pro cess i n a m uch m or e invasi ve and detai l ed f ashi on than the i sol ate d statutor y provi si ons of gener al appli cati on approve d in M etro po lita n L ife a nd For tHal i f ax . ” Id. at50 2. A s no ted abov e, the A tte nd ant Am endm ent c re ate s a pre sum pti on o fr et al i at i o n tha t sh i fts no t th e bur deno fpr o duct i o n, b ut th e b ur de n o

f proof

. Th i s s hi ft i ng o f the b ur de n o fpro of ap p li es ind efi nitely once an em p loy e e has either exe rc ised r i ghts und erthe A tte nd ant Am endm ent o r al l ege d i n g o o d f ai ththa t th e empl o y eri s no t co m pl y i ngwi ththe ter m s of the A tte nd ant A m endm ent. This str i ngent m easure i m p acts the abi l i ty ofan e m plo yerto di sci pline o r fi re em plo yee s, pu rs uant to the ter m s of a co ll ecti ve ba r g aini ng a g r ee m en t. UnderCo ng r es s Pl az a’ s pr ev i o us CB A , cl ai m s o fbr eac hes had t o proce ed thr ough a car eful l y c r a ft e d g r i e v a nc e p r o c e du r e a nd i fn o tr e s o l v e d,38 N o. 07

- 3377

A cou rt m ay “tak e jud icial no tice of histor ical d ocu m en ts, 14 doc um en t s c ont ai ne d i n the publ i c r ec or d, an d re por t s of (co n tin u ed ...) re quir ed the parti es to subm i t t o arbi tr ati on. ( CB A at 30- 32)

. By c re at in g a pri vate cause o fact i on f orr eta l i ati on w h ich sh ifts t h e b u rd en of p ro of t o th e e m p loy er ind efini tel y, the A tte nd ant Am endm ent further “ sta nd s a s a n ob st ac le t o th e a c c om p lish m en t a n d ex ec u tio n of th e fu ll p u rp os es an d ob je c t i ve s” of th e N L R A

. Li vadas , 512 U

. S. at 120 ( quoti ng B row n v . Ho tel E m plo yees , 46 8 U.S

. 49 1, 50 1 ( 1984 ) )

. The N LR A ’ s pu rpos es, as sta ted i n the “Fi nd i ngs a nd De cl ar ati on o fP o l i c y ” i n § 1 o fthe NLR A, 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 51, i ncl ud e, am ong othe r thi ngs, “e ncoura gi ng pra cti ces fund am entalto the fr i endlyadj ustm ent o fi nd ustr i al disputes ar i si ng o ut o fdiffer ences as to w age s, hour s, o r o the r wo r k i ng c o nd i t i o ns . . . . ” T he At t e nd a ntAmen dm ent doe s the exac t o pp osi te, enco urag i n g l i ti gat i on ra the r tha n r e s o l ut i o n thr o ugh the me c ha ni s m e s t a bl i s h e d b y th e C B A. M or eov er, r oo m at tendants a re ty pica l l y pai d on an h ou rly ba sis , bu t a re req u ire d to c o m p let e a ce rt ain n u m b er of roo m s w ith in th at tim e. Se eIl l

. Hot e l & Lodgi ng A ss ’n v. Ludw ig, 86 9 N
. E.2 d at 8 46, 84 9 ( I l l

. A pp . 20 07) ( “H ote l ro om att endants ess enti al l y w or k on a pie ce- ra te sys tem
. Both uni on a nd nonuni on hot el s re q u i re r oo m att en dants to cl ean a quota ofr oo m s e ach work shi ft. A lthou gh they are paid by the h o u r , room atten d an ts are r equi r ed to de l i ve r a qua nt i fi ed amoun t o fwor k dur i ng th eir sh ift an d can be disciplined if th ey fai l t o d o so . ”). 14N o. 07

- 3377 39

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 14 adm ini st rat ive bod ies
. . . . ” M enomi neeIndi an Tri be of Wi s. v. Thom pso n , 16 1 F .3d 4 49, 45 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98 )

. Thus , we m ay t ake ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f th e st a te co u rt d ec isi o n s. In re Salem , 465 F. 3d 76 7, 771 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ) (“ W e b eg in w ith th e N ew Y or k cases; w e t ake j ud ic ial no tic e ofthe se dockets and opinions
. ”)

. M oreov er, this c ou rt m ay “co nsid er jud icially no ticed d ocu m en ts withoutc on ver t i ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o a m ot i on f or sum m ary j ud gm ent. ” M enomi neeIndi an , 161 F. 3d at 456. T he I ll inois l egislature u sed this a s a basis to sup p ort the Attendant A m endm ent, not i ng duri ng the co m m ittee hear i ngs tha t th e quota s yst em i m pacted “al l hot elr oo m a t t e nd a nt s ’ ab i l i t y t o t a k e b r e a ks. ” Ill

. Hot e l & Lo dgi ng As s ’ n v . L u dwig, N o. 05 CH 1379 6, * 10 ( Cir cui t Cour t o f Cook Count y, Illinoi s 2 006) ( ci ti ng He ar i ngs on H
. B. 3485 B efo re the Ho use La bo r C o m m ittee ). G iven th e pa y and w ork str ucture ofr oo m attendants, m andati ng br eak s a ffects the s tr ucture ofthe enti re ty ofthe em p loy m en t a gr eem ent. To i l l ustr ate : A ssum e t h at C ongr ess Pl aza re quir es r o o m a t t e n d a n t s t o c l e a n a n d s e r v i c e e i g h t e e n r o o ms du ring ea ch shi ft. Congr ess Pl aza custo m ar i l y prov i ded ro om at tendants o ne unpaid thi rty- m i nute lun c h br eak

. A dd i ng ano therthi rty m i nutes o fbr eak

- tim e is l i kel y t o preve nt r oo m at ten dants fro m co m ple ti ng the r equi re d ei ghtee n-r oo m quota. A fteral l, i f Congre ss Pl aza bel i eve d that the aver age ro om att endant coul d c l ean or serv i ce ei g ht ee n r o o m s i n l es s ti m e, i t w ou ld i nc r ea se the numbero fr o o m s r equi r ed to b e cl ean ed or dec r ea se the shi ft t i m e. Thus, the A tte nd ant Am endm en t’s m andated bre aks noto nl y incre ase br eakti m es, but i nterfere with40 N o. 07

- 3377

Thi s i nt er fer en c e m i ghtbe ac c ept abl e, i fthe At t en dant 15 A m e n d m en t w as a law of gen era l ap p lication , b u t be cau se it tar gets the one s pecific i nd ustr y

— the v er y i nd ustr y w hich has in plac e an effic ie ncy st and ard set ti ng m ini m al quotas

— the Att en dantAm en dm en tbe c om es ani nt er fer en c e with the collec tiv e b arg ain ing p ro cess. th e e n tir e q u ot a s tr u c tu re of C on gr es s P laz a’s C B A

. In 15 f act, i t a pp ear s fro m the hear i ngs o fthe H ouse Labor Comm i tt ee tha t th e l egis l atur e i nt en ded to a l te r the str ucture ofthe em plo ym ent r elati onshi p between hote l s, like C on gr es s P laz a, an d th eir em p loy ee s. SeeIll. H o te l & Lodg ing Ass’ n v. Ludw ig, N o . 0 5C H 13 79 6 a t *1 0 (C irc u it Cou r t o fCo o kCo unty, I l l i no i s 20 06 ) (“R ath er, the c o nc erns expre sse d by the Legi sl atur e focuse d gener al l y o n al l hot elr oo m at tend an ts’ abi l i ty to tak e br eak s in an i nd ustr y where each ind i vi du alm ust cl ean a q uota of ro om s perday. ”) ( ci ti ng He a rings on H
. B. 3485Be f oret he H o use La bo r C o m m ittee )

. A s the Suprem e Court state d in M achinis ts , “[o]u r d ec isio n s . . . ha ve m ad e itab u n d an tly cl ear that sta te att em pts to i nfl uence t h e substanti ve te r m s o fc o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng ag r ee m en ts a r e as i nc o nsi ste nt with the federa l reg u lato rysche m e a s a re such att em pts bythe N LR B.

. . . ” M achinis ts , 42 7 U.S

. at15 3. The Ni nth Ci r cui t i n Brag don li kewis e fo und that a sta te l aw thati m pacted the b roader l aborag re em ent was p reem p ted by the N L R A un d er M achinis ts because “it affec ts the b ar g aini ngpr o ce ss i n a m uchmor e i nv as i ve a nd det ai l ed f as hi o n tha n the i so l at ed st atut o r y pr o vi si o ns o fg en er ala ppl i ca ti o n a ppr o ve d i n M et ropolit an Lifea ndN o. 07

- 3377 41 For tHal i

f ax . ” Brag don , 64 F .3d at50 2. T h e s ta te law in Brag don , as n ot ed ab ov e, se t a p re va ilin g w ag e. T h e p re va ili ng w age r equi r ed a m i ni m ala m o unttha t wag es a nd be ne fi ts mustt o ta l t o g ethe r, b uta l so setthe min i m um am ou n t t h at m u s t b e p aid in w ag es . Id. A s the Brag don cour t a ptl y r eco gni zed, thi s ordi nance i nter fer ed w i th th e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i ng p r o c e s s b e c a u s e i fth e e mplo yerhad agr eed t o a t ota l co m pensati on packa ge that exceeded the Ordinance’ s r equi re m ents, but had a wage c om p on en t low er th an th at se t b y t h e O rd in an c e, “[t ]h is wo ul d p l a c e c o ns i de r a b l e p r e s s ur e o n the c o nt ra cto r and i ts em plo yee s t o re vi se the l aborag re em ent t o re du ce th e b en efitp ac ka g e a n d inc re as e t h e h ou rly w ag es in o r dert o r emai n c o m pet i ti ve a nd o bt ain th e co nt r ac ts a nd j obs

. . . . ” Id. Li k ewi se , i n Bec ht e l Cons t r uc t i on, Inc . v. U nite d B rothe rhood of Ca rpe nte rs & Joiners of Am er ica , 81 2 F. 2d 1220 ( 9th Ci r. 19 87) , the N i nth C ircuithel d that a st at e l aw e st ab l i sh i nga min i m um w age s ca l e f o r a ppr en ti ce s wa s n o ta mi ni mum l a b o r s t a nd a r d, i n pa r tb e cause “a set w age f orapprenti ces w oul d have r equi re d higher payf o r a l l l ev el s i n the t r ade , i n o r dert o mai nt ain the gr aded w age sca l e. ” Id. at11 26. Thus, “[ t] he r i ght t o bar gain col l ecti vel y o fo ne gro up or anotheris harm ed by th e m in im u m w ag e fo r ap p re n tic es .” T h e N in th C irc u it fu rt h er ex p lain ed th at “[u ]n like th e m in im u m be n efit st an dar ds i n M e t r opol i t an , the Ca l i f o r ni a r e qu i r e men t s do no t affec t al l wor k er s equa l l y, b utc o nc ern o nl y a ppr en ti ces. ” Id. I n turn, “[ t] hi s a ccounts f or t h e d i sto rt i ng effect that enf or cem ent o fthe [ w age ] S tand ar ds coul d have o n the b ar gaini ng pro cess . ” Id. S i m i l ar l y, in thi s ca se , the Att en dan t Am en dm en t affec ts no t j us t br ea kpe r i o ds, b ut42 N o. 07

- 3377

C on g ress Pla za a lso arg u es th at the A ttend an t A m en d m en t is 16 pr e e m pt e d b e c a us e i t“ un i l a t e r a l l y a l t e r s the pa r t i e s ’ c ol l e c t i ve (co n tin u ed ...) i nter fer es w i th bo th the di spute- resol uti on s tr ucture of the e m plo ym ent r el ati onshi p and w i th the st ructur e o f the quot a s yst em . Thi s inter fer ence furtherdi squal i fi es th e Att en dan t Am en dm en t f r o m b einga min i m um l ab o r s t a nd a r d. I n s um , f o r numer o us r easons, w e co nc l ude tha t th e A tten d an t A m en d m en t is not a m inim u m labor stan d ard an d i s pr ee m pte d b y the NLRA

. F irs t, the Att en dan t A m en d m en t is not a l aw of g e n e r a l ap p li cation
. Rat he r, th e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t a p p lies to on e o c c u p at ion, in o ne i ndus try, i n one c o unty . Thi s l i m i te d s co pe o fthe Att en dant Am en dm en t di sc o ur ag es c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng by enc o ur agi ng l obby i ng f or ta rg ete d l egi sl ati on appl i cabl e to the e qui va l en t o fa b ar g aini nguni t. The At t e n d a n tA me n d me n ti s fu r th e r n o ta t r u e “ mi n i mu m” labor stan d ard , as d em ons trated w he n th e statu te’s p rovisi ons are j ux tap osed against the m inim al stand ard o fg en er ala ppl i ca ti o n c ur r en tly i n e ffec t i n I l l i no i s, i
. e. , o ne u n p aid tw en ty -m in u te br ea k, an d w h en co n sid er ed in l i g hto fthe f o r m i dab l e en f o r ce m en t m ec ha ni sm, i ncl ud i ng the tr ebl e d am age s and unprecedente d shi fti ng o f th e bur deno fpr o o ft o the e m pl o y er . The Att en dan t Am endm en t fur th eri nt er fer es wi ththe o bj ec ti ve s o fthe NL R A b y o v e r r i d i n gth e d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n me c h a n i s ms al re ady i n pla ce and by i nter fer i ng with the payand quota str ucture est abl i shed f orr oo m at tend an ts
. Fo r al l o fthes e re as on s, w e co n c lu d e t h e A tt en d an t A m en d m en t is

16N o. 07

- 3377 43

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 b arg ain ing a g reem en t term s and con d ition s. ” A p p ellan t R ep ly Br. at 1. Con g re ss P laza beli eves thata s tat e l aw w hich f orces Congr es s Pl az a t o uni l at er al l y c han ge the t er m s an d co ndi t i ons ofem ploym ent du ri ng a labor dis pu te v io lat es federal law b eca u se, p rior to im p asse, the N L R A requ i r e s em p loy ers to “conti nue to apply the t erm s ofthe ex pired bargain in g agreeme n t
. ” Ap p e l l a n tRe p l y B r . a t3

. We d i s a g r e e . Ha d the Att en dantA m en d m en tt ru l y r epr es en t ed a m i ni m um l abor s t anda rd thatdi d noti nt er fer e with the c ol l ec t i ve bar gai ni ng p r o c e s s , th e f a c tth a tth e S t a t e l a w m a n da t e s d i ffe r e n tt e r ms an d con d itio n s t h a n th ose co nta ined in an exp ired C B A w ou ld b e irrelev an t. preem pted by the M ac hi n i st s d oc tr in e. Se eBr agdon , 64 F. 3d at 504 ( “Fur ther m or e, thi s type of m i ni m um labor st an dar d e na ct m en t, whi chi s no t o fg en er ala ppl i ca ti o n, butt ar g et s pa r ti cul arw o r k er s i n a par ti cul ari ndus try a nd i s deve l oped and rev i sed fro m the bar gaini ng o fo ther s, affe c ts th e b ar ga in in g p ro c es s in a w ay th at is in c om p at ible wi ththe g en er alg o al s o fthe NLRA

. ”)

. Beca us e the Att en dant A m endm ent i s pre em pted by the M achin is ts d octrine, w e ne ed not d eterm ine w he th er Garmon pr e e mpt i o n wo ul d a l s o a ppl y. Li k e wi s e , we n e e d n o tde c i de w hethert h e A tte nd ant Am endm ent v i ol ate s Congr ess Pl a za’ s e qu a l p r o t e c t i o n a nd du e p r o c e s s r i g ht s . Ac c o r di ng l y, we r ev er se the j ud gm en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t an d re m and thi s ca se to the di str i ct cou rt for pr oce edi ngs consi ste nt with our rul i ng.44 N o. 07

- 3377 III

. F o r the rea son s st at ed ab o ve , we co nc l ude tha t th e A tte nd m ent Am endm ent i s pre e mpt e d b ytheNLR A under the M achinis ts doct rine
. W e R EV ERSE a nd R EMA ND f or pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

12- 15- 08