Council of City of New York v. Bloomberg
6 N.Y.3d 380, 846 N.E.2d 433 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local ordinance requiring city contractors to provide equal employment benefits to domestic partners and spouses is preempted by state competitive bidding laws and federal ERISA regulations, as it functions as a regulatory policy rather than a proprietary market activity aimed at efficiency.
Facts:
- In 2004, the New York City Council enacted the Equal Benefits Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 6-126).
- The Equal Benefits Law mandates that no city agency may enter into contracts valued at $100,000 or more annually with any person or firm that fails to provide domestic partners of its employees employment benefits equal to those provided to spouses.
- “Domestic partners” are defined as people registered under Administrative Code § 3-240 (a) or who register with a contractor pursuant to the Equal Benefits Law itself.
- “Employment benefits” covered by the law include, but are not limited to, health insurance, pension, retirement, disability and life insurance, family, medical, parental, bereavement and other leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and adoption assistance.
- The Mayor vetoed the Equal Benefits Law, but the City Council overrode his veto by a vote of 41 to 4.
- The Mayor, believing the law to be invalid, publicly stated that his administration would not implement or enforce the Equal Benefits Law.
Procedural Posture:
- Shortly before the Equal Benefits Law's effective date, the Mayor initiated a declaratory judgment action against the City Council, asserting the law's invalidity based on state and federal preemption, and seeking a permanent injunction.
- The Mayor applied for a temporary restraining order and moved for a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement in Supreme Court (the trial court/court of first instance), but Supreme Court denied the application for a temporary restraining order.
- The Mayor then informed Supreme Court that he would withdraw his motion for a preliminary injunction and would not implement the Equal Benefits Law, stating he would comply with controlling state laws.
- The next day, the New York City Council commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court against the Mayor and the City, seeking a judgment to compel immediate implementation and enforcement of the Equal Benefits Law.
- Supreme Court granted the City Council's Article 78 petition, relying on a presumption of validity, and without addressing the Mayor's arguments against the law's validity.
- The Mayor appealed to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court), which concluded that the Equal Benefits Law was preempted by both the General Municipal Law and ERISA, and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's Equal Benefits Law, which mandates that city contractors provide equal employment benefits to domestic partners and spouses, conflict with and thus become preempted by state competitive bidding statutes and federal ERISA regulations?
Opinions:
Majority - R.S. Smith, J.
Yes, the city's Equal Benefits Law is preempted by state competitive bidding statutes and federal ERISA regulations. The court first established that the Mayor was entitled to raise the invalidity of the Equal Benefits Law as a defense in an Article 78 proceeding because mandamus relief requires a "clear legal right" to compel action, and an officer cannot be directed to enforce an unconstitutional law. The law conflicts with General Municipal Law § 103, which requires public contracts to be awarded to the "lowest responsible bidder." While the goal of providing equal benefits is desirable, it does not "affect the qualification of an otherwise responsible low bidder" and is not a justification for departing from competitive bidding requirements, as established in Associated Bldrs. & Contrs. v City of Rochester. Unlike project labor agreements (PLAs) upheld in New York State Chapter, which sought to achieve efficiencies and save public money, the Equal Benefits Law serves a social policy objective, which cannot trump competitive bidding mandates. Furthermore, the Equal Benefits Law is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC § 1144 (a), which broadly supersedes state laws that "relate to any employee benefit plan." Citing Shaw v Delta Air Lines, Inc., the court reaffirmed that ERISA prohibits states from regulating the content of ERISA plans. The City Council's "market participant" argument—that the city is merely choosing who to contract with, not regulating—fails under United States Supreme Court precedent (Building & Constr. Trades Council v Associated Builders & Contractors of Mass./R.I., Inc. [Boston Harbor] and Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v Gould Inc.). The market participant exception is narrowly limited to situations where the state acts as a proprietor with an interest in efficient contract performance, not when it uses its market power to set policy, which the Equal Benefits Law clearly does by inducing contractors to adopt specific benefit structures.
Dissenting - Rosenblatt, J.
No, the court should not have ruled on the validity of the Equal Benefits Law in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding. Justice Rosenblatt argued that under the separation of powers doctrine, the executive branch's duty is to enforce duly enacted laws unless and until they are judicially nullified. The Mayor's refusal to enforce the law and subsequent assertion of its invalidity as a defense in an Article 78 proceeding, which he effectively provoked, improperly shifted the burden onto the legislative branch to compel enforcement. An Article 78 proceeding is designed for summary disposition of legal issues and is ill-suited for the complex constitutional analysis required to challenge a law's validity, especially when facts (e.g., the law's economic impact) are disputed. Such constitutional challenges properly belong in a declaratory judgment action, which provides for a full evidentiary record, discovery, and a higher burden of proof for the challenging party, ensuring that the judiciary, and not the executive, is the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. Allowing the executive to unilaterally refuse enforcement and then use that refusal to initiate constitutional review in a summary proceeding undermines the fundamental principles of separation of powers and proper judicial process.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of municipal home rule and legislative power when confronted with state and federal preemption. It reinforces that local governments cannot use their contracting authority to impose social policy requirements on public contractors if those requirements conflict with broader state competitive bidding statutes or federal regulatory schemes like ERISA. The decision critically interprets the "market participant" exception, limiting its application to actions genuinely aimed at achieving proprietary efficiencies rather than governmental policy objectives. Furthermore, the case touches upon the delicate balance of separation of powers, affirming that an executive can raise the invalidity of a law as a defense in a mandamus proceeding, though this point was strongly contested by the dissent, which emphasized the executive's duty to enforce laws until judicial nullification. Future cases will rely on this precedent when evaluating the legality of municipal ordinances that seek to leverage contracting power for social or labor policy goals, requiring careful consideration of whether such actions are truly proprietary or impermissible regulation.
