Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc

Decision Date24 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1578,81-1578
PartiesRobert R. SHAW, Acting Commissioner, etc., et al., Appellants v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

New York's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination in employee benefit plans on the basis of pregnancy, and its Disability Benefits Law requires employers to pay sick leave benefits to employees unable to work because of pregnancy. Section 514(a) of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides, with enumerated exceptions, that ERISA shall supersede "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan" covered by ERISA. ERISA does not mandate that employers provide any particular benefits, and does not itself proscribe discrimination in the provision of employee benefits. Prior to the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which made discrimination based on pregnancy unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, appellee employers had welfare benefit plans subject to ERISA that did not provide benefits to employees disabled by pregnancy. Appellees brought three separate declaratory judgment actions in Federal District Court, alleging that the Human Rights Law was pre-empted by ERISA. Appellee airlines also alleged that the Disability Benefits Law was preempted. The District Court in each case held that the Human Rights Law was pre-empted, at least insofar as it required the provision of pregnancy benefits prior to the effective date of the PDA. As to appellee airlines' challenge to the Disability Benefits Law, the District Court construed § 4(b)(3) of ERISA as exempting from ERISA coverage those provisions of an employee benefit plan maintained to comply with state disability insurance laws, and, because it concluded that appellees would have provided pregnancy benefits solely to comply with the Disability Benefits Law, the court dismissed the portion of the complaint seeking relief from that law. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to the Human 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.

Held:

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. 95-100.

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.100-106.

(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. 100-102.

(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. 103-106.

3. The Disability Benefits Law is not pre-empted by ERISA. Pp.103-106.

(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). Pp. 106-108

(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. P.108 0

650 F.2d 1287 and 666 F.2d 21; and 666 F.2d 27 and 666 F.2d 26, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Deborah Bachrach, New York City, for appellants.

Gordan Dean Booth, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

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).

I
A.

The Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law §§ 290-301 (McKinney 1982 and Supp.1982-1983), is a comprehensive anti-discrimination statute prohibiting, among other practices, employment discrimination on the basis of sex. § 296.1(a).1 The New York Court of Appeals has held that a private employer whose employee benefit plan treats pregnancy differently from other onoccupational disabilities engages in sex discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Law. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 41 N.Y.2d 84, 390 N.Y.S.2d 884, 359 N.E.2d 393 (1976). In contrast, two weeks before the decision in Brooklyn Union Gas, this Court ruled that discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended 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.

The Disability Benefits Law, N.Y.Work.Comp.Law §§ 200-242 (McKinney 1965 and Supp.1982-1983), requires employers to pay certain benefits to employees unable to work because of nonoccupational injuries or illness. Disabled employees generally are entitled to receive the lesser of $95 per week or one-half their average weekly wage, for a maximum of 26 weeks in any one-year period. §§ 204.2, 205.1. Until August 1977, the Disability Benefits Law provided that employees were not entitled to benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities. § 205.3 (McKinney 1965). From August 1977 to June 1981, employers were required to provide eight weeks of benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities. 1977 N.Y.Laws, ch. 675, § 29 (formerly codified as N.Y.Work.Comp.Law § 205.3). This limitation was repealed in 1981, see 1981 N.Y.Laws, ch. 352, § 2, and the Disability Benefits Law now requires employers to provide the same benefits for pregnancy as for any other disability.4

B

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), subjects to federal regulation plans providing employees with fringe benefits. ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans. See Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U.S. 359, 361-362, 100 S.Ct. 1723, 1726-1727, 64 L.Ed.2d 354 (1980); Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 510, 101 S.Ct. 1895, 1899, 68 L.Ed.2d 402 (1981). The term "employee benefit plan" is defined as including both pension plans and welfare plans.5 The statute imposes participation, funding, and vesting requirements on pension plans. §§ 201-306, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1086 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). It also sets various uniform standards, including rules concerning reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary responsibility, for both pension and welfare plans. §§ 101-111, 401-414, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1021-1031...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3306 cases
  • First Capital Life Ins. v. AAA COMMUNICATIONS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • October 27, 1995
    ...designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2896, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (citations omitted). Congress enacted ERISA to guarantee, for example, that "`if a worker has been p......
  • Virginia Beach Policemen's Benev. Ass'n v. Reich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • March 22, 1995
    ...state regulation of employee benefit plans. ERISA § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); see also Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 91, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2896, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (explaining general preemption under ERISA). Notwithstanding its expansive preemption provisions, ERISA curre......
  • In re Harless
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 25, 1995
    ...248, 83 S.Ct. 1210 (1963), where there is implicit in federal law a barrier to state regulation, Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 77 L.Ed.2d 490, 103 S.Ct. 2890 (1983), where Congress has legislated comprehensively, thus occupying an entire field of regulation and leaving no room......
  • Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • October 15, 1990
    ...for all types of plans; the latter the preemption of all state laws relative to employer benefit plans. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983); Donovan v. Dillingham, 688 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir.1982) (en The United States Supreme Court discussed the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Complete Versus Conflict Preemption In ERISA Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 13, 2014
    ...cause of action "relates to" an ERISA plan whenever it has "a connection with or reference to such a plan." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983). The Supreme Court has "observed repeatedly that this broadly worded provision is 'clearly expansive.'" Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - September 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 20, 2012
    ...29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (emphasis added). Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 139 (1990) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 655 (1995). Id. at 656. 904 F.2d 236 (5t......
  • Federal District Court Upholds Michigan Health Insurance Claims Assessment Act
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 28, 2012
    ...named in their official capacities only. 4 See generally, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. 5 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). 6 Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983). See also N.Y. State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 7 MICH. COMP. LAWS § 550.173......
27 books & journal articles
  • The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 65 No. 1, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...to avoid paying pensions to employees"). (226) ERISA [section] 2, 29 U.S.C. [section] 1001(a)-(b). See also Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983) (discussing ERISA's goal of protecting the rights and interests of employees and their (227) See Troyen A. Brennan, An Ethical Pe......
  • Kewanee revisited: returning to first principles of intellectual property law to determine the issue of federal preemption.
    • United States
    • Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Vol. 12 No. 2, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992), citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 95 (1983); Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 152-53 (1982); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230......
  • FIFRA preemption of common-law tort claims after Cipollone.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 No. 2, March 1995
    • March 22, 1995
    ...v. Dow Chem. Co., 797 F. Supp. 1128, 1139 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). (67) Cipollone, 112 S. Ct. at 2620 (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983)). (68) S. Rep. No. 838, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3993, 4021. (69) Yowell v. Chevron Chem. Co., 83......
  • A framework for analysis of ERISA preemption in suits against health plans and a call for reform.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 11 No. 1-2, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...maintained solely to comply with workers compensation, unemployment compensation and disability laws. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983), and District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (42) 481 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1987). (43) 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir. 1993), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT