Opinion ID: 2818506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Preemption Exception.

Text: The final leg of our journey takes us to the handful of exceptions to Younger abstention identified by the Supreme Court. One such exception is potentially relevant here. That exception pertains when state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54 (internal quotation mark omitted). Though this exception is quite narrow, see Rossi v. Gemma, 489 F.3d 26, 35 n.16 (1st Cir. 2007); Dubinka - 21 - v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 225 (9th Cir. 1994), the Court has left open the possibility that a facially conclusive claim of preemption may serve to override the Younger mandate, see NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 366-67. Following this lead, we have recognized facially conclusive preemption as a potentially valid basis for refusing Younger abstention. See Chaulk Servs., Inc. v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrim., 70 F.3d 1361, 1370 (1st Cir. 1995). In the case at hand, the appellants ask us to find facially conclusive their assertion that ERISA preempts the chapter 151B claim and, thus, the MCAD proceeding itself.2 To evaluate this construct, some background is helpful. ERISA preempts any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan covered by the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). This sweeping language preempts a wide variety of state laws to the extent that they have the requisite connection with an ERISA plan. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 95-100 (1983). Although many state anti-discrimination laws that relate to ERISA plans may beget ERISA preemption, some do not. For 2 In this court, the appellants have not reasserted the argument, made below, that ERISA likewise prohibits the MCAD from investigating and adjudicating a standalone ADA claim. Because we conclude that preemption of the chapter 151B claim is not facially conclusive and that the agency may resolve that issue, we have no reason to explore this aspect of the matter further. - 22 - example, ERISA does not preempt federal anti-discrimination laws (such as the ADA), see 29 U.S.C. § 1144(d), so state antidiscrimination laws are immune to ERISA preemption insofar as they prohibit conduct proscribed by federal law, see Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New Eng., Inc., 203 F.3d 90, 96-97 (1st Cir. 2000). But to the extent that a state anti-discrimination law prohibits more conduct than its federal counterpart, it is preempted when applied to an ERISA plan. See Shaw, 463 U.S. at 103-04. There is little question but that the chapter 151B claim sub judice relates to the Plan: it seeks directly to regulate the Plan's contents. Whether preemption of the claim is facially conclusive, though, turns on the answers to two ancillary questions. First, does the Plan fall at least arguably outside the realm of ERISA? Second, does the ADA at least arguably prohibit an employer from offering disparate benefits based on the type of disability that may afflict an employee? If either of these answers is in the affirmative, the appellants' claim of preemption cannot be deemed facially conclusive. We start and end with the second question.3 In Colonial Life, we found facially inconclusive a nearly identical claim of 3 Because this question yields an affirmative answer, we bypass the first question and take no view on it. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the MCAD has contended all along, albeit without meaningful elaboration, that factual disputes abound as to the existence of ERISA coverage. - 23 - preemption (a claim that ERISA preempted an MCAD charge that state law prohibited providing short-term disability benefits to employees with physical, but not mental, disabilities). See 572 F.3d at 27-28. The appellants have not identified any supervening authority that would allow us to second-guess that determination. See San Juan Cable LLC v. P.R. Tel. Co., 612 F.3d 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2010) (discussing law of the circuit doctrine). Even so, the MCAD gives Colonial Life too wide a berth. It reads that decision as holding that any time a preemption claim presents an issue of first impression in this circuit, the claim cannot be facially conclusive. While that reading finds support in some of Colonial Life's dicta, see, e.g., 572 F.3d at 28-29 (stating that the existence of a question of first impression regarding the ADA's applicability . . . precludes preemption from being facially conclusive), it is not the holding of the case. If it were, Colonial Life would conflict with Chaulk, in which we determined that a preemption claim was facially conclusive even though the relevant issue (concerning whether the doctrine articulated in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), divested the MCAD of jurisdiction over a statelaw gender discrimination claim) was one of first impression in this circuit. See Chaulk, 70 F.3d 1361. It would also conflict with common sense: whether pigs can fly is a question of first impression in this circuit — we have no holding directly on point - 24 - — but the answer to this question is so obvious as to be facially conclusive. The holding of Colonial Life is far less mechanical. The court explained that the district court's need to conduct a 'detailed analysis,' including resolving interjurisdictional differences demonstrated that ERISA preemption was not facially conclusive. Colonial Life, 572 F.3d at 28. The rule, then, is that when a federal statute indisputably preempts a state-law claim, preemption is facially conclusive whether or not we have previously opined on the question. But when there is room for reasonable doubt, the preemption claim is not facially conclusive and cannot block abstention. See, e.g., Verizon New Eng., Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Labor & Training, 723 F.3d 113, 118-19 (1st Cir. 2013) (holding preemption exception inapplicable where federal plaintiff was attempting to extend the doctrine of labor law preemption in[to] a new area (internal quotation marks omitted)). Drawing the line in this place is consistent with Younger, which contemplates that when federal questions are raised in a state proceeding, those questions ordinarily should be resolved in that proceeding. See 401 U.S. at 45. Only when preemption of the state-law claim is beyond reasonable dispute does the paradigm shift. See Hughes v. Att'y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2004). Even modest ambiguity concerning the result of a preemption inquiry precludes this shift. - 25 - Preemption has been held not facially conclusive if, for example, there are unresolved factual disputes, see NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 367; Colonial Life, 572 F.3d at 27, or if a federal court would be required to delve into unsettled complexities of state law, see, e.g., GTE Mobilnet v. Johnson, 111 F.3d 469, 478 (6th Cir. 1997), or if the reach of a preemption provision is itself uncertain, see Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Washington County, 180 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 1999). Enjoining state proceedings in any of these circumstances would defile the basic presumption that state courts are fully capable of safeguarding federal constitutional rights. Brooks, 80 F.3d at 639. In this case, the inquiry reduces to whether the ADA conclusively permits an employer to offer disparate benefits based on the type of disability that may afflict an employee. The appellants say that it does. In support, they point to what they describe as the unanimous consensus of federal circuit courts on this issue.4 See, e.g., EEOC v. Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d 144, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2000); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1116-18 (9th Cir. 2000); Kimber v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (10th Cir. 1999); Lewis v. Kmart Corp., 180 F.3d 166, 172 (4th Cir. 1999); Ford v. Schering-Plough The Eleventh Circuit initially decided the issue the other 4 way, but then withdrew the opinion pending rehearing. See Johnson v. K Mart Corp., 273 F.3d 1035, 1070 (11th Cir. 2001). No opinion on rehearing was ever issued, and the case reportedly was settled. - 26 - Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 608-10 (3d Cir. 1998); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1015-19 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc); EEOC v. CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d 1039, 1043-45 (7th Cir. 1996); Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F.3d 674, 677-78 (8th Cir. 1996). Based on this precedential phalanx, the appellants urge us to find facially conclusive the proposition that the ADA permits such a differential-benefit scheme and that, therefore, ERISA preempts the chapter 151B claim. Though this argument has some superficial allure, there is more to the story. The Supreme Court has never considered whether the ADA forbids an employer from offering disparate benefits to different classes of the disabled. Moreover, deciding this question would entail resolving a complex web of legal issues. These issues include whether a totally disabled individual can sue under the ADA, see Ford, 145 F.3d at 604-08; whether a differential-benefits claim is viable under the ADA, see id. at 608-10; Parker, 121 F.3d at 1010-14; and what bearing (if any) the ADA's safe harbor provision may have on differential-benefits claims, see Staten Island, 207 F.3d at 150-51. To complicate matters further, there is some reason to think that the question is not open-and-shut. Some of the circuit court decisions upon which the appellants rely were made over strong dissents. See, e.g., Parker, 121 F.3d at 1020-22 (Merritt, J., dissenting). Furthermore, many of them were decided before - 27 - Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which the MCAD envisions as supporting the viability of differentialbenefits claims under the ADA. To assess the soundness of this proposition, we would have to untangle the relationship between Olmstead and the Court's earlier decisions in Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (1988), and Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). None of the decisions on which the appellants rely has undertaken this task. Last — but far from least — our prior opinions have left open the possibility that an ADA claim based on differential benefits may be viable. See Tompkins, 203 F.3d at 95 n.4; Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler's Ass'n of New Eng., Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 1994). So, too, district courts in this circuit remain divided on the viability of such claims. Compare Fletcher v. Tufts Univ., 367 F. Supp. 2d 99, 111 (D. Mass. 2005) (allowing such a claim to proceed), and Iwata v. Intel Corp., 349 F. Supp. 2d 135, 149 (D. Mass. 2004) (same), with Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Medley, 584 F. Supp. 2d 368, 380 (D. Mass. 2008) (reaching opposite conclusion), and Witham v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., No. 00-268, 2001 WL 586717, at -4 (D.N.H. May 31, 2001) (same). Given this littered legal landscape, it cannot be said that there is no room for principled disagreement about the viability of differential-benefits claims under the ADA. While - 28 - the answer to that question seems much clearer than the MCAD admits, it is not the slam dunk that the appellants suggest. In short, resolving the preemption question presented here calls for exactly the sort of extensive legal analysis that places the facially conclusive preemption exception out of reach. The conclusion that no exception to the Younger doctrine applies here is reinforced by the appellants' utter failure to explain how they will be irreparably harmed by allowing the MCAD to resolve this matter. That failure is important because the common thread that links the various Younger exceptions is that, in particular situations, closing the door of the federal court to a federal question will result in irreparable harm. See NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 366; Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 123-24 (1975); Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54. And only when it is crystal clear that the state tribunal either lacks the authority to proceed or can provide no meaningful relief can a party hope to demonstrate the degree of irreparable harm needed to justify federal-court intervention. See NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 366-67. Here, the MCAD is competent to adjudicate the federal issues presented in this case and adequate review is available in the state courts. The record strongly suggests that the appellants will suffer no harm apart from the typical inconvenience that accompanies defending against charges that have been lodged. That inconvenience is not weighty enough to tip the scales: the Younger - 29 - Court admonished long ago that the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a single [proceeding are not] 'irreparable' in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the threat to the plaintiff's federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single [proceeding]. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46.