Upload
scribd-government-docs
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
1/23
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 13- 2189
MERI T CONSTRUCTI ON ALLI ANCE ET AL. ,
Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ees ,
v.
CI TY OF QUI NCY,
Def endant , Appel l ant .
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Thompson and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges,and McConnel l , * Di st r i ct J udge.
J ames S. Ti mmi ns, Ci t y Sol i ci t or , f or appel l ant .Chr i st opher N. Sour i s and Kr akow & Sour i s, LLC on br i ef f or
New Engl and Regi onal Counci l of Carpent ers, ami cus cur i ae.Chr i st opher C. Whi t ney, wi t h whomScot t K. Pomeroy and Pi erce
At wood LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.Maur i ce Baski n and Li t t l er Mendel son, P. C. on br i ef f or
Associ at ed Bui l der s and Cont r act or s, I nc. , ami cus cur i ae.
J ul y 16, 2014
*Of t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
2/23
SELYA, Circuit Judge. Thi s case pr esent s not one, but
t wo, quest i ons of consi der abl e i mpor t , each of whi ch i mpl i cat es t he
Empl oyee Ret i r ement I ncome Secur i t y Act of 1974 (ERI SA) , 29 U. S. C.
1001- 1461. The f i r st concer ns whet her t he r each of ERI SA' s
pr eempt i on pr ovi si on, 29 U. S. C. 1144( a) , extends t o a muni ci pal
or di nance mandat i ng t he est abl i shment of a speci f i c t ype of
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr am. The second concerns t he scope of
ERI SA' s f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on, 29 U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) . Af t er
car ef ul consi der at i on, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t answer ed
t he f i r st quest i on cor r ect l y, but not t he second. Accor di ngl y, we
af f i r m i n par t , r ever se i n par t , and r emand f or r econsi der at i on of
t he f ee award.
I. BACKGROUND
I n 2012, def endant - appel l ant Ci t y of Qui ncy ( t he Ci t y)
sol i ci t ed bi ds f or a const r uct i on pr oj ect at a mi ddl e school .
Woul d- be bi dder s wer e r equi r ed t o cert i f y compl i ance wi t h t he
Ci t y' s euphemi st i cal l y named Responsi bl e Empl oyer Or di nance ( t he
Or di nance) . Per t i nent l y, t he Or di nance demands t hat bi dder s on
muni ci pal publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s "engage[ ] i n a bona f i de appr ent i ce
t r ai ni ng pr ogr am" r egi st ered wi t h t he Massachuset t s Depart ment of
Labor St andar ds. Qui ncy, Mass. , Code 15. 26. 010( C) ; see Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 23, 11H, 11I ( pr ovi di ng r el evant def i ni t i ons) .
The Or di nance f ur t her mandat es t hat at l east one apprent i ce have
- 2-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
3/23
gr aduat ed f r om t he pr ogr am i n t he t wel ve mont hs i mmedi at el y
pr ecedi ng t he bi d. See Qui ncy, Mass. , Code 15. 26. 010( C) .
Thi s bi ddi ng condi t i on brought wi t h i t a l egal cl oud; a
f eder al di st r i ct cour t had r ul ed t hat ERI SA pr eempt ed a si mi l ar
or di nance passed i n Fal l Ri ver , Massachuset t s. See Ut i l . Cont r s.
Ass' n of New Eng. , I nc. v. Ci t y of Fal l Ri ver , No. 10- 10994, 2011
WL 4710875, at *7 ( D. Mass. Oct . 4, 2011) . Mer i t Const r uct i on
Al l i ance ( t he Al l i ance) , a t r ade associ at i on of const r uct i on
compani es, asked whet her t he Ci t y woul d cont i nue t o enf or ce i t s
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng r equi r ement . When t he Ci t y r esponded
af f i r mat i vel y, 1 t he Al l i ance, j oi ned by t wo of i t s member s
( Gr asseschi Pl umbi ng & Heat i ng, I nc. and D' Agost i no Associ at es,
I nc. ) , and a Gr asseschi empl oyee (Davi d Ross) , sued t he Ci t y i n t he
f eder al di st r i ct cour t . Among ot her t hi ngs, t he compl ai nt sought
i nj unct i ve and decl ar at or y rel i ef on t he gr ound t hat ERI SA
pr eempt ed the Or di nance' s appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng requi r ement . 2
1 The Ci t y' s af f i r mat i ve r esponse i ndi cat ed t hat i t woul dsuspend enf orcement of t he gr aduat i on r equi r ement i n connect i onwi t h t hi s bi d sol i ci t at i on. Because of t he l i mi t ed nat ur e of t hesuspensi on, we t hi nk t hat i t i s appr opr i at e t o i ncl ude t hegr aduat i on r equi r ement i n t he over al l pr eempt i on cal cul us.
2The pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i al l y chal l enged sever al ot her pr ovi si onsof t he Or di nance. The Ci t y agr eed not t o enf or ce some of t hesepr ovi si ons, and t he l i t i gat i on nar r owed t o f ocus on t wo pr ovi si ons:t he Or di nance' s r esi dency r equi r ement and i t s appr ent i ce t r ai ni ngr equi r ement . Event ual l y, t he Ci t y conceded t he f or mer i ssue and,t hus, t hi s appeal concer ns onl y t he l at t er .
- 3-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
4/23
The di st r i ct cour t grant ed a prel i mi nar y i nj unct i on
bar r i ng enf or cement of t he appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng r equi r ement , based
l ar gel y on i t s ear l i er deci si on i n t he Fal l Ri ver case. See Mer i t
Const r . Al l . v. Ci t y of Qui ncy ( Mer i t I ) , No. 12- 10458, 2012 WL
1357656, at *2, *4 ( D. Mass. Apr . 18, 2012) . Summary j udgment i n
f avor of t he pl ai nt i f f s f ol l owed apace. See Mer i t Const r . Al l . v.
Ci t y of Qui ncy ( Mer i t I I ) , No. 12- 10458, 2013 WL 396123, at *3 (D.
Mass. Feb. 1, 2013) .
To t he vi ct or bel ong t he spoi l s, and t he next st age of
t he bat t l e i nvol ved at t or neys' f ees. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed
t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or f ees and awar ded t hem t he amount of
$81, 007. 85. See Mer i t Const r . Al l . v. Ci t y of Qui ncy ( Mer i t I I I ) ,
No. 12- 10458, 2013 WL 3984596, at *3 ( D. Mass. Aug. 2, 2013) . The
Ci t y unsuccessf ul l y sought r econsi der at i on of t he f ees or der . See
Mer i t Const r . Al l . v. Ci t y of Qui ncy ( Mer i t I V) , No. 12- 10458, 2013
WL 4446935, at *3 ( D. Mass. Aug. 21, 2013) . Thi s t i mel y appeal
f ol l owed.
II. ANALYSIS
I n t hi s venue, t he Ci t y f or t he f i r st t i me quest i ons t he
pl ai nt i f f s' st andi ng t o sue. Because t hi s chal l enge i mpl i cat es
subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, we ar e obl i gat ed t o addr ess i t despi t e
i t s l at eness. See Am. Fi ber & Fi ni shi ng, I nc. v. Tyco Heal t hcar e
Gr p. , LP, 362 F. 3d 136, 138- 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "[ I ] t i s f i r ml y
- 4-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
5/23
set t l ed t hat chal l enges t o f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on may
be r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . ") .
The Const i t ut i on l i mi t s f eder al - cour t j ur i sdi ct i on t o
actual cases and cont r over si es. See U. S. Const . ar t . I I I , 2. I n
l i ne wi t h t hi s l i mi t at i on, a l i t i gant seeki ng t o enl i st f eder al
cour t j ur i sdi ct i on must demonst r at e hi s st andi ng t o br i ng sui t : he
must have "such a personal st ake i n t he out come of t he cont r oversy
as t o assure t hat concr ete adver seness whi ch shar pens t he
pr esent at i on of i ssues. " Baker v. Car r , 369 U. S. 186, 204 ( 1962) .
When an uni ncorporated associ at i on seeks t o open t he
door s of a f eder al cour t , i t must demonst r at e t hat " ( a) i t s member s
woul d ot her wi se have st andi ng t o sue i n t hei r own r i ght ; ( b) t he
i nt er est s i t seeks t o pr ot ect ar e ger mane t o t he or gani zat i on' s
pur pose; and ( c) nei t her t he cl ai m asser t ed nor t he r el i ef
r equest ed r equi r es t he par t i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual member s i n t he
l awsui t . " Hunt v. Wash. St ate Appl e Adver . Comm' n, 432 U. S. 333,
343 ( 1977) . For an i ndi vi dual t o have st andi ng, he must est abl i sh
i nj ur y i n f act , causat i on, and r edr essabi l i t y. See Luj an v.
Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560- 61 ( 1992) .
The f i r st el ement of t hi s t r i ad i nqui r es i nto t he
exi st ence of "an i nvasi on of a l egal l y pr ot ect ed i nt er est whi ch i s
( a) concr et e and par t i cul ar i zed and ( b) act ual or i mmi nent , not
conj ect ur al or hypot het i cal . " I d. at 560 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The second el ement asks whet her t he
- 5-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
6/23
al l eged i nj ur y i s "f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he chal l enged act i on of t he
def endant . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) .
The t hi r d el ement asks whet her i t i s " l i kel y, as opposed t o mer el y
specul at i ve, t hat t he i nj ur y wi l l be r edr essed by a f avor abl e
deci si on. " I d. at 561 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
The Al l i ance' s member s pass t hi s t r i part i t e t est wi t h
f l yi ng col or s. Among t hei r r anks ar e cont r act or s t hat nei t her
mai nt ai n appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr ams nor sat i sf y the Or di nance' s
gr aduat i on quota. Those members suf f er i nj ur y because they want t o
bi d on publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s i n Qui ncy but ar e const r ai ned f r om
doi ng so by t he st r i ctur es of t he Or di nance. I f t he pl ai nt i f f s
pr evai l , t he Or di nance wi l l be decl ar ed nul l and voi d, t hus
r emovi ng t he i nj ur y- causi ng obst r uct i on t o t hei r bi ddi ng
el i gi bi l i t y.
Si mi l ar l y, t he Al l i ance meet s t he cri t er i a f or
associ at i onal st andi ng. At l east some of i t s member s have
i ndi vi dual st andi ng, and pr eservi ng i t s member s' bi ddi ng
capabi l i t i es cl osel y r el at es t o i t s r ai son d' t r e. To ci nch
mat t er s, nothi ng about an ERI SA pr eempt i on chal l enge cal l s f or
enl i st i ng t he par t i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual Al l i ance member s. See
Ret ai l I ndus. Leader s Ass' n v. Fi el der , 475 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 4t h Ci r .
2007) .
The Ci t y, i n ef f ect , at t empts t o conf ess and avoi d. I t
di sput es none of t he concl usi ons r ecount ed above but , r at her , t r i es
- 6-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
7/23
t o gr af t a r equi r ement of an ERI SA- cover ed appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng
pr ogr am ont o t he t est f or const i t ut i onal st andi ng. Thi s i s pi e i n
t he sky: t he Ci t y of f er s no aut hor i t y f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he
Const i t ut i on i mposes any such r equi r ement .
Of cour se, ERI SA' s st at ut or y enf or cement pr ovi si on
cont empl ates t he exi st ence of an ERI SA pl an. See 29 U. S. C.
1132( a) ( 3) . But t he quest i on of st andi ng t hat t he Ci t y r ai ses
her e i s const i t ut i onal i n nat ur e, and we see no r eason t hat such a
condi t i on i s necessar y t o r ender t hi s act i on an act ual case or
cont r over sy wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e I I I . See Wr i ght
El ect r i c, I nc. v. Mi nn. St at e Bd. of El ec. , 322 F. 3d 1025, 1028- 29
( 8t h Ci r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hat pl ai nt i f f need not "show t hat i t s
appr ent i ceshi p pr ogr am was an ERI SA pl an i n or der t o est abl i sh
subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on") . We t her ef or e hol d t hat t he Al l i ance
has st andi ng t o chal l enge the Or di nance on t he gr ound of ERI SA
preempt i on.
Havi ng determi ned t hat an actual case and cont r oversy
exi st s, we pr oceed t o chew on t he meat of t he appeal : pr eempt i on
and at t or neys' f ees. We addr ess t hese subj ect s sequent i al l y.
A. Preemption.
The Ci t y ass i gns er r or t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng
t hat ERI SA pr eempt s t he Or di nance' s appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng
r equi r ement . Si nce thi s r ul i ng was made on summary j udgment , our
r evi ew i s pl enar y. See Geshke v. Cr ocs, I nc. , 740 F. 3d 74, 76 ( 1st
- 7-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
8/23
Ci r . 2014) ; see al so Car pent er s Local Uni on No. 26 v. U. S. Fi d. &
Guar . Co. , 215 F. 3d 136, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .
"ERI SA i s a compr ehensi ve st atut e desi gned t o pr omote the
i nt er est s of empl oyees and t hei r benef i ci ar i es i n empl oyee benef i t
pl ans. " Shaw v. Del t a Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 463 U. S. 85, 90 ( 1983) .
Enact ed i n par t " t o saf eguard empl oyees f r om t he abuse and
mi smanagement of f unds t hat had been accumul at ed t o f i nance var i ous
t ypes of empl oyee benef i t s, " t he st at ut or y scheme "sets f or t h
r epor t i ng and di scl osur e obl i gat i ons f or pl ans, i mposes a f i duci ar y
st andar d of car e f or pl an admi ni st r at or s, and est abl i shes schedul es
f or t he vest i ng and accr ual of pensi on benef i t s. " Massachuset t s v.
Morash, 490 U. S. 107, 112- 13 ( 1989) .
When consi der i ng a cl ai m of pr eempt i on, "our t ask i s t o
ascer t ai n Congr ess' i nt ent i n enact i ng t he f eder al st at ut e at
i ssue. " Shaw, 463 U. S. at 95. Wi t h r espect t o ERI SA, t hi s i nt ent
i s expr ess, i f somewhat "opaque. " De Buono v. NYSA- I LA Med. &
Cl i ni cal Ser vs. Fund, 520 U. S. 806, 809 ( 1997) . By i t s t er ms and
subj ect t o exempt i ons not r el evant her e, ERI SA "super sede[ s] any
and al l St at e l aws i nsof ar as t hey may now or her eaf t er r el at e t o
any empl oyee benef i t pl an. " 29 U. S. C. 1144( a) .
The Supr eme Cour t has di st i l l ed t he st at ute' s " r el at e t o"
l anguage i nt o t wo i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent al t er nat i ves: "a
connect i on wi t h or r ef er ence t o" an ERI SA pl an wi l l r esul t i n
pr eempt i on. Shaw, 463 U. S. at 97. Under t hi s t wo- si ded r ubr i c,
- 8-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
9/23
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
10/23
Of cour se, not ever y concei vabl e connect i on wi l l suppor t
pr eempt i on. For exampl e, st at e l aws t hat mer el y exer t an " i ndi r ect
economi c i nf l uence" on a pl an do "not bi nd pl an admi ni st r at or s t o
any par t i cul ar choi ce" and, t hus, do not come wi t hi n ERI SA' s
pr eempt i ve r each. Cal . Di v. of Labor St andar ds Enf or cement v.
Di l l i ngham Const r . , I nc. , 519 U. S. 316, 329 ( 1997) ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . On t he ot her hand, "st at e st at ut es t hat
' mandat e[ ] empl oyee benef i t st r uct ur es or t hei r admi ni st r at i on'
. . . amount [ ] t o ' connect i on[ s] wi t h' ERI SA pl ans" and ar e
t her ef or e pr eempt ed. I d. at 328 ( f i nal al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )
( quot i ng Tr avel er s, 514 U. S. at 658) .
The pat h f r om i nf l uence t o coer ci on amount s t o a
cont i nuum and i t i s not al ways a si mpl e t ask t o det er mi ne wher e
al ong t hi s cont i nuuma par t i cul ar st at e l aw f al l s. See Tr avel er s,
514 U. S. at 668; see al so Samuel C. Sal gani k, Not e, What t he
Unconst i t ut i onal Condi t i ons Doct r i ne Can Teach Us About ERI SA
Pr eempt i on: I s I t Possi bl e To Consi st ent l y I dent i f y "Coer ci ve" Pay-
or - Pl ay Schemes?, 109 Col um. L. Rev. 1482, 1515- 19 ( 2009) . Thi s
case, however , does not gr eat l y t ax our capaci t y f or di scernment :
t he Or di nance cat egor i cal l y r equi r es al l cont r act or s on Qui ncy
publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s t o oper at e a Massachuset t s- appr oved
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr am. See Qui ncy, Mass. , Code
15. 26. 010( C) . I ncor por at i ng t he st at e' s st andar ds i mposes a r af t
of st r i ngent condi t i ons on woul d- be bi dder s i ncl udi ng, among
- 10-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
11/23
ot her s, document at i on of t he pr ogr am' s t er ms and condi t i ons, see
453 Mass. Code Regs. 7. 03( 8) ( b) ; t he l ocat i on of t he pr ogr am' s
appr ent i ce acti vi t i es, see i d. 7. 03( 8) ( e) ; t r ai ni ng and
i nst r ucti on, see i d. 7. 04( 1) ( b) ( 1) - ( 4) ; wage r at es, see i d.
7. 04( 1) ( b) ( 5) ; r ecor dkeepi ng, see i d. 7. 04( 1) ( b) ( 23) , 7. 13;
i nst r uctor qual i f i cat i ons, see i d. 7. 04( 2) ; appr ent i ce enr ol l ment ,
see i d. 7. 07( 1) ; r epor t i ng, see i d. 7. 07( 2) ; and t er mi nat i on, see
i d. 7. 08(3) . For good measur e ( or bad measur e dependi ng on one' s
poi nt of vi ew) , t he Or di nance separ at el y requi r es a def i ned
gr aduat i on r at e. See Qui ncy, Mass. , Code 15. 26. 010( C) .
Wi t h such a compendi umof st i pul at i ons i n pl ace, we have
no di f f i cul t y concl udi ng t hat t he Or di nance goes f ar beyond si mpl y
i nf l uenci ng ERI SA appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr ams. I t mandat es an
empl oyee benef i t st r uct ur e and speci f i es how t hat st r uct ur e must be
admi ni st er ed. Thi s i s si mpl y t oo i nt r usi ve t o wi t hst and ERI SA
preempt i on.
The Ci t y bal ks. I t asser t s t hat even i f i t s Or di nance
const i t ut es a mandate, t hat shoul d not be t he end of t he mat t er .
I n suppor t , i t suggest s t hat "[ t ] he key di st i nct i on i s bet ween a
st at ut e t hat mandat es or ef f ect i vel y mandat es an aspect of l aw wi t h
whi ch ERI SA i s concer ned . . . and a st at ut e t hat does not . "
Assoc' d Bui l der s & Cont r s. v. Mi ch. Dep' t of Labor & Econ. Gr owt h,
543 F. 3d 275, 280 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) . ERI SA i s a st at ut e concer ned
- 11-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
12/23
wi t h f undi ng, i t s t hesi s r uns, and l ocal r egul at i on of appr ent i ce
t r ai ni ng st andar ds i s t oo remot e to war r ant ERI SA pr eempt i on.
Thi s asser t i on i s t r ue as f ar as i t goes, but i t does not
t ake t he Ci t y ver y f ar . ERI SA "has more t han one pur pose. " Si mas
v. Quaker Fabr i c Cor p. , 6 F. 3d 849, 856 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . I n
addi t i on t o f undi ng concer ns, "[ t ] he uni f or mi t y of r egul at i on
gai ned by empl oyers under ERI SA was assur edl y part of t he
l egi sl at i ve bal anci ng of i nt er est s and t r ade- of f s. " I d.
The Or di nance pl ai nl y di st urbs t hat bal ance. Let us
of f er an exampl e. Al t hough t he Or di nance r equi r es t he gr aduat i on
of at l east one appr ent i ce wi t hi n t he pr evi ous t wel ve mont hs, see
Qui ncy, Mass. , Code 15. 26. 010( C) , Fal l Ri ver ' s count er par t
or di nance requi r ed t he gr aduat i on of at l east t wo appr ent i ces per
year f or t he t hr ee year s pr i or t o a bi d, see Ut i l . Cont r s. Ass' n,
2011 WL 4710875, at *7. Accor di ngl y, compl i ance wi t h t he Ci t y' s
f or mul a woul d not ef f ect compl i ance wi t h Fal l Ri ver ' s; and so t he
Or di nance woul d " r equi r [ e] t he t ai l or i ng of pl ans and empl oyer
conduct t o t he pecul i ar i t i es of t he l aw of each j ur i sdi ct i on. "
I nger sol l - Rand Co. v. McCl endon, 498 U. S. 133, 142 ( 1990) . Such a
r esul t woul d be "f undament al l y at odds wi t h t he goal of uni f or mi t y
t hat Congr ess sought t o i mpl ement " t hr ough the enactment of ERI SA.
I d.
Ther e i s yet anot her r eason why t he Ci t y' s ar gument does
not wor k. The Di l l i nghamCour t , whi l e f i ndi ng no pr eempt i on t her e,
- 12-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
13/23
was car ef ul t o di st i ngui sh si t uat i ons i n whi ch an "appr ent i ceshi p
pr ogr am i s r equi r ed by [ st at e] l aw t o meet [ t he st at e' s]
st andar ds. " 519 U. S. at 332. The Or di nance t r i ps t hi s snar e: i t
not onl y mandat es t he st andar ds t hat appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr ams
must f ol l ow but al so mandates t hat empl oyers act ual l y have such
pr ogr ams i n pl ace as a condi t i on of bi ddi ng. Thi s dual mandate
goes t oo f ar : not even "di schar gi ng al l of i t s appr ent i ces wi l l
r el ease an empl oyer or a pr ogr amf r omt he r each" of t he Or di nance.
Assoc' d Bui l der s, 543 F. 3d at 282. Because t he Or di nance
unqual i f i edl y demands t he mai nt enance of a speci f i c t ype of
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr am as a condi t i on of bi ddi ng, i t exceeds
t he boundar i es of what ERI SA al l ows. See Mi nn. Chapt er of Assoc' d
Bui l der s & Cont r s. , I nc. v. Mi nn. Dep' t of Pub. Saf et y, 267 F. 3d
807, 818 ( 8t h Ci r . 2001) .
I n an ef f or t t o change t he t r aj ect or y of t he debat e, t he
Ci t y seeks t o wr ap i t sel f i n t he mant l e of t he Cour t ' s st at ement
t hat "an empl oyee benef i t pr ogr am not f unded thr ough a separ at e
f und i s not an ERI SA pl an. " Di l l i ngham, 519 U. S. at 326 ( emphasi s
i n or i gi nal ) . Such a pl an can be used t o compl y wi t h t he Or di nance
and, i n t he Ci t y' s vi ew, t he avai l abi l i t y of t hi s non- ERI SA avenue
t o compl i ance ought t o pr et er mi t a f i ndi ng t hat t he Or di nance
r el at es t o ERI SA pl ans.
Thi s i s anf r act uous r easoni ng. " [ W] het her a Stat e
r equi r es an exi st i ng pl an t o pay cer t ai n benef i t s, or whet her i t
- 13-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
14/23
r equi r es t he est abl i shment of a separ at e pl an where none exi st ed
bef or e, t he pr obl em i s t he same. " For t Hal i f ax Packi ng Co. v.
Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 13 ( 1987) . A pl an admi ni st r ator put t o such a
choi ce i s st i l l "[ f ] aced wi t h t he di f f i cul t y or i mpossi bi l i t y of
st r uct ur i ng admi ni st r at i ve pr act i ces accor di ng t o a set of uni f or m
gui del i nes. " I d.
The l esson of For t Hal i f ax i s per t i nent her e. To compl y
wi t h the Or di nance, an empl oyer wi t h an ERI SA- governed appr ent i ce
t r ai ni ng pr ogr am ei t her woul d have t o modi f y that pr ogr am t o
pr ovi de appr ent i ces on Qui ncy- based pr oj ect s wi t h speci al benef i t s
or woul d have t o est abl i sh and coor di nate a separ at e pl an i nt o
whi ch such appr ent i ces woul d be f unnel ed. Ei t her way, t he
empl oyer ' s hope of uni f or m admi ni st r at i on woul d be dashed by t he
Or di nance' s demands. Such bal kani zat i on of benef i t admi ni st r at i on
i s exact l y t he sor t of out come ERI SA was desi gned t o pr event . The
upshot i s t o def enest r at e t he Ci t y' s i nsi st ence t hat we at t ach
decr et or y si gni f i cance t o an empl oyer ' s abi l i t y t o compl y wi t h t he
Or di nance by means of a non- ERI SA pl an. See Mi nn. Chapt er of
Assoc' d Bui l der s, 267 F. 3d at 817; cf . Egel hof f v. Egel hof f ex r el .
Br ei ner , 532 U. S. 141, 150- 51 ( 2001) ( hol di ng t hat an abi l i t y t o
opt out of a st at e l aw does not save t he l aw f r om pr eempt i on) .
The deci si on i n Gol den Gat e Rest aur ant Ass' n v. Ci t y &
Count y of San Fr anci sco, 546 F. 3d 639 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) , l oudl y
br ui t ed by t he Ci t y, i s not t o t he cont r ar y. Ther e, t he Ni nt h
- 14-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
15/23
Ci r cui t hel d t hat r equi r i ng a cer t ai n l evel of heal t h- car e
expendi t ur es whi ch mi ght , but need not , be spent t hr ough an ERI SA
pl an di d not t r i gger ERI SA pr eempt i on. See i d. at 646, 661. But
t he cour t di d not pur pose t o l ay down a bl anket r ul e that whenever
compl i ance can come t hr ough a non- ERI SA opt i on, ERI SA preempt i on i s
unavai l abl e. I nst ead, t he cour t r ecogni zed t hat st at e l aws t hat
" r equi r ed empl oyer s t o have [ benef i t ] pl ans, and . . . di ct at ed t he
speci f i c benef i t s empl oyer s wer e to pr ovi de thr ough t hose pl ans"
woul d be pr eempt ed. I d. at 655.
The Ci t y next cont ends t hat t he Fi t zger al d Act , 29 U. S. C.
50, somehow ai ds i t s cause. That cont ent i on i s f r ui t l ess. Whi l e
t he Fi t zger al d Act "r ecogni zed pr e- exi st i ng st at e ef f or t s i n
r egul at i ng appr ent i ceshi p pr ogr ams, " Di l l i ngham, 519 U. S. at 330,
not hi ng i n t hat st at ut e i ndi cat es a congr essi onal i nt ent i on t o
sanct i on l ocal ef f or t s t o mandat e st at e- appr oved appr ent i ce
t r ai ni ng pr ogr ams.
Looki ng f or comf or t i n any quar t er , t he Ci t y pr oposes an
anal ogy t o the Supr eme Cour t ' s s t atement t hat a st ate "may f orce
t he empl oyer t o choose bet ween pr ovi di ng di sabi l i t y benef i t s i n a
separ at el y admi ni st er ed pl an and i ncl udi ng t he st at e- mandat ed
benef i t s i n i t s ERI SA pl an. " Shaw, 463 U. S. at 108. That
pr onouncement has no t r act i on her e: i t i s anchor ed i n a st at ut or y
exempt i on f r om ERI SA f or pl ans " mai nt ai ned sol el y f or t he pur pose
of compl yi ng wi t h . . . di sabi l i t y i nsur ance l aws. " 29 U. S. C.
- 15-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
16/23
1003( b) ( 3) . No comparabl e exempt i on anchors t he Ci t y' s pr oposed
anal ogy.
Scr api ng t he bot t om of t he bar r el , t he Ci t y assever at es
t hat i n passi ng t he Or di nance, i t mer el y act ed as a par t i ci pant i n
t he mar ket f or const r uct i on ser vi ces. Thi s r ol e, i t says,
i mmuni zes i t s act i ons f r om ERI SA pr eempt i on. See Car di nal Towi ng
& Aut o Repai r , I nc. v. Ci t y of Bedf or d, 180 F. 3d 686, 691 ( 5t h Ci r .
1999) ( hol di ng t hat "when a st at e or muni ci pal i t y act s as a
part i ci pant i n t he market and does so i n a narr ow and f ocused
manner consi st ent wi t h the behavi or of ot her mar ket par t i ci pant s,
such act i on does not const i t ut e r egul at i on subj ect t o pr eempt i on") ;
see al so Reeves, I nc. v. St ake, 447 U. S. 429, 436 ( 1980) ( dr awi ng
di st i nct i on "bet ween St at es as mar ket par t i ci pant s and St at es as
market r egul ators" f or Commerce Cl ause pur poses) .
Thi s asseverat i on st al l s bef or e i t st ar t s. The Ci t y
f ai l ed t o rai se t hi s i ssue i n i t s summar y j udgment paper s and,
"[ i ] f any pr i nci pl e i s set t l ed i n t hi s ci rcui t , i t i s that , absent
t he most ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances, l egal t heor i es not r ai sed
squar el y i n t he l ower cour t cannot be br oached f or t he f i r st t i me
on appeal . " Teamst er s Uni on, Local No. 59 v. Super l i ne Transp.
Co. , 953 F. 2d 17, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . The mar ket par t i ci pat i on
t heor y i s, t her ef or e, not pr oper l y bef or e us. 3
3 To be sur e, t he Ci t y pr ot est s t hat i t s mar ket par t i ci pat i ont heor y sur f aced dur i ng t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on pr oceedi ngs. But" [ t ] he di st r i ct cour t was under no obl i gat i on t o rummage thr ough
- 16-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
17/23
We summar i ze succi nct l y. ERI SA speci f i cal l y i ncl udes
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr ams i n i t s def i ni t i on of empl oyee wel f ar e
benef i t pl ans. A st at e- l aw mandat e r egar di ng t he st r uct ur e or
admi ni st r at i on of such pl ans f al l s wi t hi n t he ambi t of ERI SA' s
pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. The Or di nance compr i ses such a mandate
because i t di ct at es t he est abl i shment of an empl oyee benef i t
st r uct ur e and sets t he st andar ds gover ni ng t hat s t r uct ur e. Even
t hough a non- ERI SA opt i on mi ght be avai l abl e f or compl i ance wi t h
t he Or di nance, t he avai l abi l i t y of such an opt i on does not save t he
Or di nance: i t s mandat e st i l l has t he ef f ect of dest r oyi ng t he
benef i t of uni f or m admi ni st r at i on t hat i s among ERI SA' s pr i nci pal
goal s.
That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . We concl ude t hat
ERI SA pr eempt s t he Or di nance and af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant
of summar y j udgment .
B. Attorneys' Fees.
Thi s l eaves t he i ssue of at t or neys' f ees. Af t er ent er i ng
summar y j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t , r espondi ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'
mot i on, awar ded t he pl ai nt i f f s at t or neys' f ees t ot al i ng $81, 007. 85
under ERI SA' s f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on, 29 U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) , and
[ t he Ci t y' s] pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on f i l i ngs" when cont empl at i ngsummary j udgment . CMM Cabl e Rep, I nc. v. Ocean Coast Props. , I nc. ,97 F. 3d 1504, 1526 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . The di sposi t i ve ci r cumst ancei s t hat t he Ci t y f ai l ed, di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y, t o advance amarket par t i ci pat i on def ense i n r esponse t o t he summary j udgmentmot i on. See i d.
- 17-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
18/23
t he Fees Act , 42 U. S. C. 1988. The Ci t y conceded bel ow t hat a
por t i on of t hi s awar d ( $20, 725) cor r esponded t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'
successf ul ef f or t s i n st r i ki ng t he r esi dency r equi r ement f r om t he
Or di nance and, t hus, was pr oper l y awarded under 42 U. S. C. 1988. 4
However , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not make such a di f f er ent i at i on;
r ather , i t awarded a gl obal amount t hat covered both work done i n
at t acki ng the resi dency r equi r ement and wor k done i n at t acki ng t he
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng r equi r ement . See Mer i t I I I , 2013 WL 3984596,
at *2- 3. Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t i ndi cat ed t hat bot h 42 U. S. C.
1988 and 29 U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) wer e i n pl ay, i t di d not br eak
down t he f ee award al ong t hose l i nes. See i d.
ERI SA' s f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on per mi t s a di st r i ct cour t
t o "al l ow a r easonabl e at t or ney' s f ee and cost s of act i on" f or an
"act i on under t hi s subchapt er . . . by a par t i ci pant , benef i ci ar y,
or f i duci ar y. " 29 U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) . The Ci t y cont ends t hat t he
di st r i ct cour t l acked aut hor i t y to make any f ee awar d under t hi s
pr ovi s i on. I t s obj ect i ons ar e t wof ol d. Fi r st , i t asser t s t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f s' act i on was not an "act i on under t hi s subchapt er . "
Second, i t asser t s t hat no pl ai nt i f f qual i f i es as a "par t i ci pant ,
benef i ci ar y, or f i duci ar y" of an ERI SA pl an as t hat phr ase i s used
i n t he f ee- shi f t i ng st at ut e.
4 The pl ai nt i f f s have not agr eed t hat t hei r f ees f or wor k i nconnect i on wi t h t he r esi dency r equi r ement ar e l i mi t ed t o t hi samount . That i ssue r emai ns open f or expl orat i on on r emand. Seet ext i nf r a.
- 18-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
19/23
Her e, t oo, a pr ocedur al obst acl e l ooms. The Ci t y
advanced t hese obj ect i ons f or t he f i r st t i me i n i t s mot i on f or
r econsi derat i on of t he f ee award. To succeed on such a mot i on,
" t he movant must demonst r ate ei t her t hat newl y di scover ed evi dence
( not pr evi ousl y avai l abl e) has come t o l i ght or t hat t he r ender i ng
cour t commi t t ed a mani f est er r or of l aw. " Cal der n- Ser r a v.
Wi l mi ngt on Tr ust Co. , 715 F. 3d 14, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal
quotat i on mark omi t t ed) . We r evi ew t he deni al of such a mot i on f or
abuse of di scr et i on. See i d.
Thi s obst acl e i s f or mi dabl e but i t i s not
i nsur mount abl e. Al t hough a di st r i ct cour t has subst ant i al
di scret i on i n eval uat i ng a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, "subst ant i al
di scr et i on i s not unbr i dl ed di scr et i on. " Wei nber ger v. Gr eat N.
Nekoosa Cor p. , 925 F. 2d 518, 528 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . As her e, a
mani f est er r or of l aw may out st r i p t he boundar i es of even t hat wi de
di scret i on. See, e. g. , Max' s Seaf ood Caf ex r el . Lou- Ann, I nc. v.
Qui nt eros, 176 F. 3d 669, 678- 79 ( 3d Ci r . 1999) ; Edward Gr ay Corp.
v. Nat ' l Uni on Fi r e I ns. Co. , 94 F. 3d 363, 367- 69 ( 7t h Ci r . 1996) .
As we expl ai n bel ow, we t hi nk t hat t hi s i s t he unusual case i n
whi ch t he er r or was so mani f est t hat t he mot i on f or r econsi der at i on
shoul d have been gr ant ed.
Wi t h r espect t o t he Ci t y' s f i r st poi nt whet her a
pr eempt i on chal l enge qual i f i es as an "act i on" f or t he pur poses of
29 U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) t he di st r i ct cour t acknowl edged t hat t he
- 19-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
20/23
quest i on i s "cl ose. " Mer i t I V, 2013 WL 4446935, at *2. 5 Thi s i s
an accur at e char act er i zat i on, but we do not need t o pur sue t he
quest i on: r egar dl ess of whet her t hi s case qual i f i es as t he t ype of
"act i on" necessar y t o engage t he gear s of ERI SA' s f ee- shi f t i ng
pr ovi si on, we cannot di scer n an appr opr i at e "par t i ci pant ,
benef i ci ar y, or f i duci ar y" t o whomf ees coul d l awf ul l y be awar ded.
As bot h t he pl ai nt i f f s and t he di st r i ct cour t concede,
t he onl y possi bi l i t y i s pl ai nt i f f Ross. But t her e i s a r ub: Ross
i s not a par t i ci pant , benef i ci ar y, or f i duci ar y of any ERI SA
appr ent i ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr am.
Ross' s st andi ng as an el i gi bl e "par t i ci pant " r el i es
i nst ead upon hi s st at us as a par t i ci pant i n hi s empl oyer ' s 401( k)
pl an a pl an t hat i s whol l y unr el at ed t o the cont est ed appr ent i ce
t r ai ni ng r equi r ement . Such r el i ance depends, i n t ur n, upon r eadi ng
t he ERI SA f ee- shi f t i ng st at ut e i n t he br oadest possi bl e sense. On
t hat vi r t ual l y l i mi t l ess vi ew, t he "par t i ci pant , benef i ci ar y, or
f i duci ar y" descr i bed i n t he st at ut e need not have any nexus t o a
r el evant ERI SA pl an: any ERI SA pl an wi l l do.
5 The di st r i ct cour t specul at ed t hat t he act i on mi ght bevi ewed as one t o "enf or ce" ERI SA' s pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. Mer i t I V,2013 WL 4446935, at *2. Thi s specul at i on i s puzzl i ng i n l i ght oft he di st r i ct cour t ' s ear l i er hol di ng ( i n t he Fal l Ri ver case) t hat
t he pr eempt i on chal l enge was not "an act i on or [ a] r equest [ f or ]r el i ef under t he ci vi l enf or cement sect i on of ERI SA. " Ut i l .Cont r s. Ass' n, 2011 WL 4710875, at *3; see Ri char d H. Fal l on, J r .et al . , Har t and Wechsl er ' s The Feder al Cour t s and t he Feder alSyst em 712 ( 6t h ed. 2009) ( st at i ng t hat pr eempt i on chal l enges t ost at e l aw ar e r out i nel y al l owed "wi t hout expr ess st at ut or yaut hor i zat i on") .
- 20-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
21/23
We ar e conf i dent t hat t he t ext of t he st at ut e i s not
el ast i c enough t o al l ow so expansi ve an i nt er pr et at i on. The
pl ai nt i f f s of f er no case l aw or l egi sl at i ve hi st or y f or t he
ext r aor di nar y pr oposi t i on t hat Congr ess i nt ended par t i ci pat i on i n
a si ngl e ( unr el at ed) ERI SA pl an t o conf er an unf et t er ed r i ght t o
col l ect at t or neys' f ees i n any ERI SA act i on. Thi s l ack of
aut hor i t y i s unsur pr i si ng: under t he so- cal l ed Amer i can r ul e,
l i t i gant s ar e gener al l y r esponsi bl e f or t he r emuner at i on of t hei r
own l awyer s. See Al yeska Pi pel i ne Ser v. Co. v. Wi l der ness Soc' y,
421 U. S. 240, 247 ( 1975) . Fee- shi f t i ng st at ut es depar t f r om t hi s
nor m and, t hus, must be st r i ct l y const r ued. See MR Cr escent Ci t y,
LLC v. Dr aper ( I n r e Cr escent Ci t y Est at es, LLC) , 588 F. 3d 822, 826
( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . The pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed i nt er pr et at i on of 29
U. S. C. 1132( g) ( 1) cont r avenes t hese t enet s. As such, Ross' s
par t i ci pat i on i n an unr el at ed 401( k) pl an i s mani f est l y
i nsuf f i ci ent t o gr ound an awar d of f ees i n t hi s case.
As a f al l back, t he pl ai nt i f f s ur ge us t o af f i r mt he f ul l
f ee awar d under t he Fees Act , 42 U. S. C. 1988. Thi s st at ut e
aut hor i zes a cour t t o awar d at t or neys' f ees t o " t he pr evai l i ng
par t y" i n an act i on t o enf or ce a di scret e set of ci vi l r i ght s
st at ut es. Al t hough ERI SA i s not one of t hose ci vi l r i ght s
st at ut es, t he pl ai nt i f f s say t hat t he i ssue of ERI SA pr eempt i on i s
bound up wi t h t hei r vi ct or y regar di ng t he Or di nance' s r esi dency
r equi r ement and t he f ees r el at ed t o pr eempt i on of t he appr ent i ce
- 21-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
22/23
t r ai ni ng r equi r ement shoul d f ol l ow sui t . Cf . Wagenmann v. Adams,
829 F. 2d 196, 225 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( hol di ng t hat "an awar d of f ees
f or t i me spent on al l aspect s" of t he case was proper under sect i on
1988 wher e t he non- ci vi l r i ght s cl ai ms " wer e suf f i ci ent l y
i nt er connected wi t h t he [ ci vi l r i ght s] cl ai ms") .
The di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y decl i ned t o consi der t hi s
ar gument because i t pr emi sed i t s f ee awar d i n si gni f i cant par t on
t he ERI SA f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on. See Mer i t I I I , 2013 WL 3984596,
at *2. Si nce t he cour t awar ded t he f ul l amount t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s
r equest ed, i t di d not need t o ( and di d not ) ar t i cul at e what por t i on
of t he awar d was at t r i but abl e t o t hat pr ovi si on and what por t i on
was at t r i but abl e t o sect i on 1988. See i d. at *2- 3.
We ar e cogni zant t hat t he t r i al j udge' s " i nt i mat e
knowl edge of t he nuances of t he under l yi ng case uni quel y posi t i ons
[ her ] t o const r uct a condi gn awar d. " Gay Of f i cer s Act i on League v.
Puer t o Ri co, 247 F. 3d 288, 292 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Wi t h t hi s
pr udent i al pr i nci pl e i n mi nd, we t hi nk i t appr opr i at e her e t o al l ow
t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi der , i n t he f i r st i nst ance, whet her any
f ees beyond t he $20, 725 conceded by t he Ci t y ar e awardabl e under 42
U. S. C. 1988( b) and, i f so, i n what amount . Accor di ngl y, we set
asi de t he f ee awar d and r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her
consi der at i on.
- 22-
7/26/2019 Merit Construction Alliance v. Quincy, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)
23/23
III. CONCLUSION
We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dated above,
we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment , but
r ever se the f ee awar d and r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her
pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. No costs.
- 23-