Opinion ID: 725049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Avoiding Multiplicity of Regulation

Text: 23 Alternatively, even if § 630 were not preempted on the ground that it makes an explicit reference to ERISA plans, we believe that § 630 is preempted because it would disserve the basic purpose of preemption in ERISA § 514, namely 'to avoid a multiplicity of regulation in order to permit the nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans.'  Greenblatt, 68 F.3d at 574 (quoting Blue Cross, 514 U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1677-78). Briefly, § 630 would hamper  'the nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans'  by providing  'an alternative enforcement mechanism to [ERISA] § 502(a).'  Greenblatt, 68 F.3d at 574 (quoting Blue Cross, 514 U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1677-78). That conclusion follows from the analysis supporting our conclusion that Romney's cause of action under § 630 is within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA § 502(a), to which we now turn. 24