Court Opinion

ID: 9700606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:37:19.675096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:12.313777
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I believe the challenged ordinance was within the City’s authority to enact and should be upheld. The district court correctly decided that, as long as all contractors are treated equally, the ordinance is not contrary to statutory competitive bidding laws.
I disagree with the district court’s alternative conclusion that the ordinance sufficiently implicates ERISA so as to be preempted by that federal legislation. The ordinance has no direct effect on the employee benefits that are negotiated between the contractors and their employees. It is merely a “fact of life” consideration of which all contractors bidding with the City must take cognizance.