FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN FALL RIVER REO
Summary of Fall River REO Decision
A) US District Court Judge Zobel explicitly restated the UCANE challenged sections of both the 4/2010 and the 9/2010 Fall River REOs (1. Journeymen residency requirement; 2. foremen residency requirement; 3. apprenticeship residency requirement; 4-6. mandatory group health, pension and apprenticeship requirements; 7. compliance certification; 8. reporting requirements and 9. noncompliance penalties.);
B) Court very briefly summarized the numerous UCANE federal and state legal arguments supporting UCANE’s position that the challenged REOs sections were unlawful;
C) Court rejected the Fall River argument case was mooted by repeal of the 4/10 Ordinance;
D) Court rejected Fall River argument UCANE, Walsh and its employee did not have standing to bring a challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution;
E) Court found the residency requirements (1, 2, 3, above; journeymen, apprentices and foremen), were a violation of the federal Privileges and Immunities Clause because the REO acted to discriminate against out of state residents and was not justified by any facts argued by Fall River;
F) Court found UCANE had standing to raise the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preemption claims;
G) Court found the mandatory group health, pension, and apprenticeship requirements (4-6, above) were unlawful because they violated the preemption section (federal law supersedes state law section) of ERISA;
H) Court rejected Fall River argument the federal apprenticeship law, Fitzgerald Act, saves the REO apprenticeship requirement from preemption;
I) Court rejected Fall River argument that Fall River was acting as a “Market Participant” and, therefore, was not subject to the ERISA preemption rules;
J) Court fund all challenged provisions of the Fall River REOs unlawful, including, required certification, reporting, and penalty sections as applied to the challenged provisions;
K) Court held any like provisions would likewise be held unlawful should Fall River attempt to circumvent this Court’s rulings of law;
L) Court directed the parties’ to agree upon a Judgment to be entred by the Court within 20 days (Draft Judgment has been approved);
M) The parties are negotiating UCANE’s attorneys’ fees.
The time for taking an appeal does not run until a Final Judgment enters. Until and unless the decision is stayed pending appeal, which is improbable since Fall River on three (3) separate occasions voluntarily agreed to not enforce the challenged sections of its REOs or the case is reversed on appeal, Fall River is prohibited from enacting and enforcing any like restrictions on public bidding.