Supreme Court of the United States
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A., Inc.
February 18, 1997519 U.S. 316
Summary
Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that ERISA does not preempt California's requirement that contractors pay prevailing journeyman wages to apprentices from unapproved apprenticeship programs. The law neither refers to ERISA plans, because approved programs need not be ERISA plans, nor has a prohibited connection with them, because its economic incentives do not dictate their choices. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded, without deciding whether ERISA's saving clause independently protected the law. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred, arguing that the Court should acknowledge that its earlier expansive approach had effectively yielded to ordinary field and conflict preemption analysis.
Holding
- Whether California's prevailing wage law makes reference to ERISA plans.. The law does not make reference to ERISA plans because apprenticeship programs may obtain approval regardless of whether their funding arrangements bring them within ERISA.
- Whether California's prevailing wage law has a prohibited connection with ERISA plans.. California's prevailing wage laws and apprenticeship standards do not have a prohibited connection with ERISA plans and therefore are not preempted.
Docket 95-789
Cited authorities
- 88 Stat. 829
- 29 U.S.C. § 1001
- 46 Stat. 1494
- 29 U.S.C. § 50
- 29 C.F.R. § 29.5
- 29 C.F.R. § 29.3
- 29 C.F.R. § 29.12
- 29 C.F.R. § 29.5
Cited by
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. v. CA Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program
- Tutungian v. Massachusetts Electric Company
- Felix A. Marino Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industries & another
- Department of Revenue v. Estate of Raymond Shea & another
- Halberg v. McLean Hospital
- Vlahos v. Alight Solutions Benefit Payment Services, LLC
- Flinn v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company
- Haslam v. Mclaughlin