Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/463-u-s-85-604909278
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:30:52+00:00

Document:
Party Name: Robert R. SHAW, Acting Commissioner, etc., et al., Appellants v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., et al.
Rights Law. With respect to the Disability Benefits Law, the Court of Appeals held that § 4(b)(3)'s exemption from pre-emption applied only when a benefit plan, "as an integral unit," is maintained solely to comply with the disability law. The Court of Appeals remanded for a determination whether appellee airlines provided benefits through such plans, in which event the Disability Benefits Law would be enforceable, or through portions of comprehensive plans, in which case ERISA regulation would be exclusive.
1. Given § 514(a)'s plain language, and ERISA's structure and legislative history, both the Human Rights Law and the Disability Benefits Law "relate to any employee benefit plan" within the meaning of § 514(a). Pp. 2899 - 2901.
2. The Human Rights Law is pre-empted with respect to ERISA benefit plans only insofar as it prohibits practices that are lawful under federal law. Pp. 2902 - 2905.
(a) Section 514(d) of ERISA provides that § 514(a) "shall not be construed to ... modify [or] impair ... any law of the United States." To the extent that the Human Rights Law provides a means of enforcing Title VII's commands, pre-emption of the Human Rights Law would modify and impair federal law within the meaning of § 514(d). State fair employment laws and administrative remedies play a significant role in the federal enforcement scheme under Title VII. If ERISA were interpreted to pre-empt the Human Rights Law entirely with respect to covered benefit plans, the State no longer could prohibit employment practices relating to such plans and the state agency no longer would be authorized to grant relief. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission thus would be unable to refer claims involving covered plans to the state agency. This would frustrate the goal of encouraging joint state/federal enforcement of Title VII. Pp. 2902 - 2903.
(b) Insofar as state laws prohibit employment practices that are lawful under Title VII, however, pre-emption would not impair Title VII within the meaning of § 514(d). While § 514(d) may operate to exempt state laws upon which federal laws, such as Title VII, depend for their enforcement, the combination of Congress' enactment of § 514(a)'s all-inclusive pre-emption provision and its enumeration of narrow, specific exceptions to that provision militate against expanding § 514(d) into a more general saving clause. Section 514(d)' s limited legislative history is entirely consistent with Congress' goal of ensuring that employers would not face conflicting or inconsistent state and local regulation of employee benefit plans. Pp. 2903 - 2905.
3. The Disability Benefits Law is not pre-empted by ERISA. Pp. 2905 - 2906.
[103 S.Ct. 2895] (a) Section 4(b)(3) of ERISA, which exempts from ERISA coverage "any employee benefit plan ... maintained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable ... disability insurance laws," excludes "plans," not portions of plans, from ERISA coverage. Hence, those portions of appellee airlines' multibenefit plans maintained to comply with the Disability Benefits Law are not exempt from ERISA and are not subject to state regulation. Section 4(b)(3)'s use of the word "solely" demonstrates that the purpose of the entire plan must be to comply with an applicable disability insurance law. Thus, only separately administered disability plans maintained solely to comply with the Disability Benefits Law are exempt from ERISA coverage under § 4(b)(3). P. 2905.
(b) A State may require an employer to maintain a separate disability plan, but the fact that state law permits employers to meet their state-law obligations by including disability benefits in a multibenefit ERISA plan does not make the state law wholly unenforceable as to employers who choose that option. Pp. 2905 - 2906.
Deborah Bachrach, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Robert Abrams, Attorney General, andPeter Bienstock, Robert Hermann, Peter H. Schiff, and Daniel Berger, Assistant Attorneys General.
d Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, and Ellen M. Doyle for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.; by Mary L. Heen, Joan E. Bertin, and Isabelle Katz Pinzler for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by J. Albert Woll, Marsha Berzon, Laurence Gold, and John Fillion for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Solicitor General Lee, Stuart A. Smith, T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Kerry L. Adams, and John A. Bryson for the United States; by Eugene B. Granof and George J. Pantos for the ERISA Industry Committee et al.; and by Walter P. DeForest and Stuart I. Saltman for Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Deborah Bachrach, New York City, for appellants.
Gordan Dean Booth, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
New York's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination in employment, including discrimination in employee benefit plans on the basis of pregnancy. The State's Disability Benefits Law requires employers to pay sick-leave benefits to employees unable to work because of pregnancy or other nonoccupational disabilities. The question before us is whether these New York laws are pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed.). General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). 2 Congress overcame the Gilbert ruling by enacting § 1 of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 2076, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. V), which added subsection (k) to § 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3 See Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, ---U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 2627, 75 L.Ed.2d --- (1983). Until that Act took effect on April 29, 1979, see § 2(b), 92 Stat. 2076, the Human Rights Law in this respect had a reach broader than Title VII.

References: v. 
 § 4
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 514
 § 4
 § 2000
 v. 
 § 1
 § 2000
 § 701
 v. 
 § 2