Amicus Curiae Brief — Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco
Supreme Court brief2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. (©) 15 Suprame Court, US.
eas FILED
AUG ? & 2009
In The ae ae
Supreme Court of the Anite States“
— >
GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
V.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondent,
SAN FRANCISCO CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL;
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNLON
(“SEIU”), LOCAL 1021; SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS-WEST; and UNITE HERE! LOCAL 2,
Intervenors/Respondents.
+
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
——— — @ — ——EE
BRIEF FOR ZAZIE AND
MEDJOOL RESTAURANTS AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
——
MELISSA A. RODGERS*
*Counsel of Record
CHRISTOPHER EDLEY, JR.
STEPHEN D. SUGARMAN
BERKELEY CENTER ON HEALTH,
ECONOMIC & FAMILY SECURITY
UNITVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
SCHOOL OF LAW
2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 500
Berkeley, California 94705
Telephone: (510) 643-4283
Facsimile: (510) 643-7095
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Zazie and Medyjool
CUOCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
QUESTION PRESENTED
San Francisco’s universal health care ordinance
contains two interlocking components: a compre-
hensive public health care program available to all
uninsured residents at sliding scale fees, and a
general health care spending requirement for
medium and large employers. Employers may comply
with the spending requirement either through their
own health care plans, or by paying into the public
program. If employers choose the public option, their
employees receive a substantial discount on the
health care services available through that program.
The question presented is:
Does ERISA preempt the portion of San Fran-
cisco’s universal health care ordinance that imposes a
general health care expenditure requirement on me-
dium and large employers, where every employer
may readily comply without adopting an ERISA plan
or altering an existing plan, and where the option of
paying into the public program is a rational choice for
employers rather than a penalty?
Hi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Soy e Oe By i! Sy ys 2 rn
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......0000000... eee eee
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...................s00+0020-
I Ahad siilea cabanas ssenibebeneuacumusneii
I.
IT.
IIl.
Complying with the Health Care Ordi-
nance Is Easy and Leaves Room for Em-
BT Be SERED SD LLIN EOIN RE IND ONL
A. Complying with the Health Care Ordi-
nance Involves Minimal and Simple
Administrative Tasks. ...................s0000c.0
B. The Health Care Ordinance Overlaps
with and Requires Less Effort than
Other Existing Labor and Employment
Mie sex cen way lcaiecinennctaaeeeds eereenaveouerinecies
C. The Health Care Ordinance Gives
Zazie Choice and Flexibility..................
The Ordinance Benefits the Public and
Protects Workers Who Risk Losing Their
Health and Even Their Lives Without It....
The Ordinance Levels the Playing Field for
Covered Businesses with Minimal Eco-
nomic trapact oft THOM ........0<c0cciss000cc00s00.00s
A. Employer Mandates Protect Employers
Like Zazie from Cost Shifting and Ad-
I
12
14
16
19
B.
D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
The Health Care Ordinance Allows
Zazie To Provide Health Coverage to
Its Employees Without Facing a Com-
petitive Disadvantage .................0...cc0ee
Despite Petitioner’s Representations
to the Contrary, Most Medium-Sized
Business Owners Support Employer
Contribution Proposals Like the Health
Care Ordinance that Have Minimal
Economic Impact on Employers............
Employer Mandates Play an Essential
Role in Preventing Crowd Out..............
SG IN 5s cass on scasuine cic niaen vecsaicethacuieeeeaeiensies
APPENDIX: Health Care Security Ordinance
(HCSO) — Mandatory Annual Reporting for
2008 ...
STH SHEESH SETHE SHEER HEHE ERE EEE HO EH OED EEE HHO BEE
22
1V
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v.
Dillingham Constr., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997)......... 6
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989) ........... 7
N.Y. State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue
Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S.
EG CBD oa viscn nc nncsiccdeccuensscncccenucerseveueeree ere ee 7
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85
€ FRI ac ca. ncncvscnsecc su sdeueesacienepébbaeekeaeeneey sania lane 7
WSB Elec., Inc. v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.
FD si vasavcessasdcceccvecceusensescunisoeieeee ee 7
FEDERAL STATUTES
ERISA, 20 U.S.C. $3001 of see). 4.4 passim
Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §106(a)................ 14
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
29 C.P RR. GG44 DG ncisiccoccctieccsvvaeseeen eee 8
STATE REGULATIONS
Cal. Lahor Code S206 anus civccessccccsssssssccutaen ae 10
IWC Wage Order, 8 C.C.R. §11050(1)(B)(1)................. 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Page
SAN FRANCISCO STATUTES, CODES, ORDINANCES &
REGULATIONS
PINE TR, SLOGO SAZIT ............000cccccccccccccsscccsccessvcesceees 14
EEE, © OME OLZIC.B(C) ...........ccccccrcccecccccesecccccsseces 13
S.F. Admin. Code §14 ef seg. .................00000000- eeeaiee 1
enna, MOGO O14.1(D)2)................ccccceccscees 3,9, 11
S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(2)(c) ............... ccc cee cece ee 3,11
enn. «loge $14.1( bX 2X d)..........................ccceceeess 8
».F. Admin. Code §$14.1(b)(2)Ch) ....................00... 0000000 1}
ent. (OGO $14. 1(DK(S) ..............-ccoscscosoresscsvacsecees 2
».f. Admin. Code $14.1(b)(3) et seg. ...............0.c.ccceeeeee0
an, <oae $14.1(bK8)\(b)........................-.cccscsscootd
mor ween. Code $14.1(b)(8)(c) ........................ceccececeees 3
S.2. Aamin. Code §14.1(b)(12)................ccsccseccscovceees 2,8
memo eeeeaams. Code $14.1(b)(15)......................eccssesscesseees 3
nnn. © ONO © 14.3(a) ............:.0.cccccccccccccccscscocceceenodd
een, (OC 614.3(D) ..............cccsecsccccccscscccesccssess 12
Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE)
peereesons, OLSE Reg. No. 2......................cccecseceees 3
Mn causececccssiosovacoscenncevenevacness 3,8
ED, so snwcnccvenvccvecsccsencsesssoasceesesecss 3
I EO, ANOS)... .cccnccccosccscccsnsssscoscercsecenes 3,8
EE Sy) 3
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
CFE ee BONE, PONS os cserssicsacidcs es ee 3
Peace mbt. 250. F. MER is ktiscccesesseriess 9,11
COL ASRe BOO. ING. S. OA) viiccsstasssdscesecvsasescesmnesasecseas 11
Ceres ME, Bhs DIED Bicdesicccscniceicisdxskecacusnscamecenerszans 11
COR sees BE, FO. BO Gisisecicinttdnnicasdcanioseeee 14
CPR IE Oh, TE RE nivnninnasseiecicexersess donee eee 9
CFR eee WUE, Bs SOCUCME MLB Bix sasnasvctaccericcdcisutecewamenacaueens 4,11
COR Fees PH FOR, Fab askin teistesicasnn sania 12
OTHER MUNICIPAL STATUTES, CODES, ORDINANCES &
REGULATIONS
Oakiand Min. Code $2,:25.0380 oo cccccccosccscecescocccctscsvesss 14
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Arindrajit Dube & Michael Reich, Univ. of Cal.
Inst. for Labor and Employment, 2003 Cali-
fornia Establishment Survey: Preliminary
Results on Employer Based Healthcare Re-
FOP TE TI? ih ideasiea civ cekkodenckl ete 23, 26
Ben Furnas & Peter Harbage, Ctr. for Am.
Progress Action Fund, The Cost Shift from
dive Corecrenssrees CIO) acvasiskscasuincissicashopistcesscduasas 20, Zi
Vil
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
Carrie Colla, William H. Dow & Arindrayjit
Dube, UC Berkeley School of Public Health,
How Do Employers React to a Pay-or-Play
Mandate? Early Evidence from San Fran-
CET, Be TD anh cocker wcacencascncensrenssckcncbertecin 23, 24
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
MMWR No. 56, Norovirus Outbreak Asso-
ciated with Ill Food-Service Workers ~ Michi-
gan, January — February 2006, 1212 (2007).......... 18
Daniel Aaronson, Price Pass-Through and the
Minimum Wage, 83 Rev. Econ. & Stat. 158
NE rege eck act cads saa casein: deciiaeeabaveees timc end 23
Eric E. Seiber & Curtis S. Florence, U.S. Small
Bus. Admin., Changes in Family Health
Insurance Coverage for Small and Large
Firm Workers and Dependents: Evidence
TFOM ITGSS FO ZOOS COO) .....00crcecsveseveccnecsenssessncnsess 21
Families USA, Pub. Ne. 05-101, Paying a Pre-
mium: The Added Cost of Care for the Un-
I a 20
Healthcare Information Division, Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Develop-
ment (OSHPD), State of California, Hospital
Quarterly Financial «ind Utilization Data
Files '\2007-2009), available at http://www.oshpd.
state.ca.us/hid/Products/Hospitals/QuatrlyFinan
Data/CmpleteData/default.asp..........................00208. 17
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Fact
Sheet: Women’s Health Insurance Coverage
CN okicateade cg bevkusesarausshucanecrsieedneweneecstcenedion weir ae sine 21
Vill
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Inst. for Health Policy Solutions, Covering Cal-
ifornia’s Uninsured: Three Practical Options,
Cal. HealthUare Found. (ZOOG) .....ccccccvescccccccecee
Jack Guzewich & Marianne P. Ross, Food and
Drug Admin., Evaluation of Risks Related to
Microbiological Contamination of Ready-to-
eat Food by Food Preparation Workers and
the Effectiveness of Interventions to Minimize
Those Risks (1999)
Ken Jacobs & Jacob S. Hacker, Berkeley Ctr.
on Health, Econ. & Family Sec., How to
Structure a “Play-or-Pay” Requirement on
Employers: Lessons from California for
National Health Reform (2009)................2.20005- 19, 27
Kent Sims, Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n, Economics
of the San Francisco Restaurant Industry
(2005), available at http://www.ggra.org/PDFS/
IF OE oss sescsicncescenecsesixessctncsacess
Lawrence H. Summers, Some Simple Eco-
nomics of Mandated Benefits, 79 Am. Econ.
SE 6 I io iri bankas Ga en vito
Lydia E. Regopoulos & Sally Trude, Employers
Shift Rising Health Care Costs to Workers:
No Long-term Solution in Sight, in Issue
Brief: Findings from HSC 2004 (Ctr. For
Health Sys. Change No. 83, 2004).....................
22
eeeree kk heed
1X
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Mitchell Katz, Nat’l Acad. for State Health
Policy and State Coverage Initiatives,
Providing Universal Access to Care: Healthy
San Francisco (2009), available at http://
www.nashp.org/files/ERISAwebcast_020609.pdf.
Peter Ilarbage & Len M. Nichols, A Premium
Price: The Hidden Costs All Californians Pay
tn Our Fragmented Health Care System, in
Issue Brief: New Am. Found. 2006 (New Am.
Found. Health Policy Program No. 3, 2006)....
Public Health Impacts on the Healthy Families
Act: Hearing on H.R. 2460 Before the Comm.
on Educ. and Labor, 110th Cong. 6 (2009)
(statement of Rajiv Bhatia, Director, Occupa-
tional and Environmental Health, San Fran-
cisco Department of Public Health). ................
jan Mateo County Blue Ribbon Task Force
on Adult Health Care Coverage Expansion,
Opinion Research Regarding Health Cov-
erage Expansion (2007), available at http://
WWW.CO. BOATING COO.CR.UB ..0.000scresrccccevncserenessasrcnenes
Small Bus. for Affordable Healthcare, Small
Bus. Majority, California Small Bus. Health-
I NN IE Dias idcncck cannes ts coves erncstvevela sustutanes
Timothy F. Jor s & Frederick J. Angulo,
Eating in Resteurants: A Risk Factor for
Foodborne Disease’, 43 Clinical Infectious
Diseases 1324 (2006)
Page
potas 16
seabed 18
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
RULES
Pe TIT, TO So 0 cdi so niivadeccs slanectwennikavsccacsdccaes l
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'
The San Francisco Ilealth Care Security Ordi-
nance (“Health Care Ordinance” or “ordinance”), S.F.
Admin. Code $14 et seq., levels the economic playing
field for businesses that wish to provide health
insurance coverage for their employees. Without the
Health Care Ordinance, restaurants that aspire to
cover their employees would be forced to abandon
their health care benefits or be driven out of business
because of the difficulty in competing with other
restaurants that do not spend money on health care.
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association (““GGRA” or
“Petitioner”) does not represent the interests of all
the restaurants in San Francisco, nor does it embody
the interests of restaurant employees, taxpayers, and
the restaurant-going public. Indeed, amicus Medjool
is a member of the GGRA but disagrees with the
GGRA’s position in this case.
The Health Care Ordinance serves the interests
of amici curiae, Zazie and Medjool, medium-sized
restaurants in San Francisco, because it enables
these restaurants to act responsibly by providing
health insurance coverage for employees while
' Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, no counsel for a
party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person or
entity other than amici curiae made a monetary contribution
intended to fund the preparation and submission of this brief.
Amici notified counsel of record for each party in a timely
manner 10 days prior to filing, and Ictters of consent have been
filed with the Clerk of the Court.
2
maintaining their ability to compete economically.
The ordinance further serves the interests of Zazie
and Medjool by enabling the restaurants to protect
the health of both employees and customers, by
ensuring that employees have access to affordable
health care services, and by helping to prevent
episodes of food contamination by ill employees.
Amici believe that not only is the ordinance in their
own interest but it is in the interest of all restaurants
and San Francisco residents, because it allows
businesses to compete in a fair and level context
while also ensuring that all San Francisco workers
have access to affordable health care.
This brief grounds its arguments in the real-
world experience of Zazie. Medjool joins the brief
because it too supports the Health Care Ordinance
and disagrees with GGRA’s stance. The arguments
set forth on behalf of Zazie apply equally to Medjool,
with the minor difference that Medjool, which already
provided health insurance for its full-time employees
before the ordinance took effect, now also pays the
City for the rest.
STATEMENT
Zazie is a neighborhood restaurant in San
Francisco and a medium-sized’ “covered employer” as
* A “medium-sized” business means a business with at least
twenty employees. S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(3), (b)(12); OLSE
(Continued on following page)
3
defined in the Health Care Ordinance and the Office
of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) Regulations
Implementing the Employer Spending Requirement
of the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance.
S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(3) et seqg.; OLSE Reg. No. 2.
The Health Care Ordinance, passed in July 2006,
has two central components: Healthy San Francisco,
a city-administered health care program that pro-
vides access to health care services for specified San
Francisco residents, and a mandatory employer
health care expenditure requirement. This expendi-
ture requirement covers all employees who work
more than eight hours a week and is pro-rated by
hours worked, based on a forty-hour work week. S.F.
Admin. Code §14.1(b)(2)\(c). Covered employers like
Zazie must spend at least $1.23 or $1.85 (depending
on employer size) on health care for each hour paid to
each of their covered employees on a quarterly basis.
S.F Admin. Code §14.1(b)(8)(b).”. Employers may
spend the funds directly on health care services or
pay into San Francisco’s program. 8.F. Admin. Code
§14.1(b)(2); OLSE Reg. No. 3.
Reg. No. 2.2({A)\(1), (C)(2). Businesses with fewer than twenty
employees are considered “small” businesses and are exempt
from the Health Care Ordinance. S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(15);
OLSE Reg. No. 2.2(C\(3).
3
In 2010, the rate will increase to $1.31 for medium-sized
employers. S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(8\(c).
4
The calculation, which involves multiplying
hours by $1.23, is straightforward. Zazie’s covered
employees work approximately 7,500 hours per
quarter so, to comply with the ordinance, the res-
taurant must spend just over $9,225 per quarter
($1.23 x 7,500), or $36,900 per year, on health care.
Zazie is permitted to average its expenditures over
employee hours worked because it offers uniform
health coverage to its employees. See OLSE Reg. No.
6.2(B)(1).
Zazie complies with the health care spending
requirement by providing health insurance for its
employees through a Kaiser Permanente (“Kaiser”)
managed care plan for which it pays approximately
$50,000 in annual premiums for covered employees.
The restaurant easily covers these payments through
a $1 surcharge for every restaurant customer.
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA)
filed suit in 2006 to block the ordinance’s employer
expenditure requirement on the grounds that it is
preempted by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §1001, ef
seq., and has now petitioned for a writ of certiorari in
an attempt to undercut the progress made in San
Francisco since the implementation of the ordinance
in January of 2008.
5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
What motivates the GGRA and its allies is a
desire to avoid spending money on providing health
care to low-wage employees. Because they cannot rea-
sonably argue that ERISA prevents local govern-
ments from enacting general employer expenditure
requirements, Petitioner its amici instead make
greatly exaggerated arguments about the adminis-
trative requirements associated with the Health Care
Ordinance. Despite parties having had full opportu-
nity for discovery, the record contains no evidence of
any burden that would support Petitioner’s position,
rendering this case a flawed vehicle for consideration
of Petitioner’s arguments.
This brief sets forth the real-world experience of
a San Francisco restaurant, Zazie, which supports
the Health Care Ordinance. Zazie credits the ordi-
nance for allowing it to offer health insurance to its
employees without being undercut by competitors
that do not want to share the responsibility for the
well-being of their workers. Zazie’s stance is not
atypical. In a recent survey by Small Business
Majority California, the overwhelming majority (80%)
of business owners employing fewer than 100 em-
ployees expressed support for employer contributions
to employee health care.
Zazie’s positive experience with the Health Care
Ordinance belies Petitioner’s arguments and under-
scores the de minimis nature of the administrative
tasks involved in compliance. Moreover, while
6
Petitioner and its allies engage in a speculative
exercise about how difficult it might be for employers
to comply with hypothetical copycat ordinances that
might some day pass in other jurisdictions, Zazie
presents evidence about what employers in San
Francisco actually do. Zazie’s experience demon-
strates that even if similar ordinances were to pass
elsewhere, employers would have little difficulty
complying, just as they currently routinely comply
with disparate minimum wage, tax, leave, and other
laws.
ERISA was never intended to shield employers
from mere expenditure requirements. ERISA was
born of a legislative compromise that incorporated a
preemption provision into what remains at heart a
worker protection law.‘ But Petitioners push for an
imbalanced reading of ERISA in which the reach of
such preemption would extend beyond what Congress
intended. ERISA’s concerns about uniformity are
limited to protecting employers from the expense and
inconvenience of having to alter their employee
benefit plans, not to eliminate the possibility that
employers might have to tweak their payroll process
slightly to comply with laws that require minimum
“ As explained in Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement
v. Dillingham Constr., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 326-327 (1997), “[iJn
enacting ERISA, Congress’ primary concern was with the mis
management of funds accumulated to finance employee benefits
and the failure to pay employees benefits from accumulated
funds.”
7
expenditures on employee benefits. See, e.g., N.Y.
State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v.
Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 657, 661 (1995);
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 108 (1989);
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 n.21
(1983). The Health Care Ordinance’s expenditure
requirement and the minimal administrative steps
involved in complying are permissible under ERISA.
For these reasons, the Court should deny the
petition.
ARGUMENT
I. COMPLYING WiTH THE HEALTH CARE
ORDINANCE IS EASY AND LEAVES
ROOM FOR EMPLOYER CHOICE.
The mere fact that a law regulating employee
benefits creates administrative requirements on
employers does not subject it to federal preemption.
WSB Elec., Inc. v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788, 795 (9th Cir.
1996). To the extent Petitioner argues that the Health
Care Ordinance is preempted because it imposes bur-
densome recordkeeping, reporting, and other admin-
istrative requirements on employers, however, it
must produce evidence in support of that argument.
It has failed to do so. Nothing in the record suggests
that complying with the ordinance is cither bur-
densome or difficult. Thus, this factual record would
not provide a basis for the Court to decide whether a
8
law may be preempted by ERISA based on employer
administrative requirements.
A. Complying with the Health Care Ordi-
nance Involves Minimal and Simple
Administrative Tasks.
Through misleading and theoretical arguments,
Petitioner and its amici greatly exaggerate the
administrative requirements associated with the
Health Care Ordinance. Zazie’s actual responsibilities
under the ordinance are straightforward and not
time-consuming.
Threshold coverage determinations, which Peti-
tioner mischaracterizes as complex, are in fact
simple. When the Health Care Ordinance went into
effect, Zazie’s owner knew the restaurant was a
“covered employer:” it typically employs a staff of
thirty, more than the twenty employee threshold. S.F.
Admin. Code §14.1(b)12); OLSE Reg. No. 2.2(A),
(C)(2). Two of Zazie’s employees, the General Man-
ager and the Chef, are deemed managerial under
California and federal law and therefore fall under
the ordinance’s “managerial, supervisorial, or confi-
dential” exemption. S.F. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(2)(d);
see IWC Wage Order, 8 C.C.R. §11050(1)(B)(1); 29
C.F.R. §541.201. The rest are hourly employees
clearly covered by the ordinance. When the ordinance
went into effect, Zazie — which was already providing
insurance to the two salaried employees who would
have been exempt — ascertained which hourly
Y
employees received health care services from another
source and purchased a Kaiser plan for the rest.
The process for new employees is equally
straightforward. Zazie calendars the new emplovee’s
health insurance start date nincty days after the date
of hire. S.F. Admin. Code §§14.1(b)(2), 14.3(a); OLSE
Reg. Nos. 3.1(A)(2), 6.1(B). Zazie’s owner likens it to
calendaring the end of a probationary period and
appreciates the ninety day window for that reason.
When the period ends, Zazie completes a one-page
health insurance enrollment form, faxes it to Kaiser,
and the new employee’s insurance starts on the first
of the following month.
Tracking hours worked is not difficult. Like any
other employer, Zazie records employee hours worked
for payroll purposes. Zazie uses a computerized time
clock. Fmployees swipe their time card when they
start and stop work, and the data go directly to
Zazies computer. Like all San Francisco restaurants
Zazie’s owner knows, Zazie uses a payroll company to
process its bi-weekly payroll. Zazie reports employee
hours worked to its payroll company, ADP, which for a
small fee provides an array of services. The need for
these services predates the Health Care Ordinance
and the ordinance has not caused the payroll proc-
essing fee to increase. ADP ensures compliance with
the latest regulations regarding federal, state, and
local taxes, calculates Zazie’s payroll with appropriate
deductions and withholdings for all jurisdictions,
notifies the state as required concerning new hires,
prepares paychecks, manages Zazie’s Unemployment
10
Insurance, calculates and reports back Workers’
Compensation premiums, calculates and produces
W2s and 1099s, and sends Zazic updated federal and
state labor law posters. ADP also allows online access
to comprehensive pay histories and provides a quar-
terly report to Zazie showing individual and gross
employee hours worked. This report is the only
payroll data required to comply with the ordinance
and Zazie needs it for pre-existing purposes. See, e.g.,
Cal. Labor Code §226. Zazie treats payroll services as
a business necessity and the Health Care Ordinance
has not prompted any change in its practice or
additional payroll expense.
Tracking how much Zazie spends on employee
health care each month has proven equally straight-
forward. Zazie receives a monthly bill from Kaiser
that shows the total premium owed, with a break-
down by employee. Zazie mails a premium check to
Kaiser and files the stub with the Kaiser bill. Zazie
keeps records of all health care expenditures using
QuickBooks accounting software, which it also used
before the ordinance went into effect. When Zazie
pays for other health care services, such as occasional
chiropractic care for its employees, Zazie tracks,
records and files those expenditures in the same way.
Every quarte, Zazie need only compare its quarterly
health care expenditures to the required level to
11
know it has complied with the Health Care Ordi-
nance.”
The Health Care Ordinance is an exceedingly
simple expenditure requirement. For employers that,
like Zazie, provide uniform health coverage to their
employees, the ordinance merely requires that the
“average expenditure rate per employee” meet or
exceed the employer expenditure requirement. OLSE
Reg. No. 6.2(B)(1) (emphasis supplied). In other
words, to determine the amount it must spend on
health care services, after subtracting the hours of
ineligible or exempt employees,’ Zazie must simply
multiply the quarterly number of hours its employees
worked, as reported by ADP, by $1.23. This cal-
culation takes less than five minutes and Zazie could
ask ADP to do it.’ Zazie then compares the required
* Had Zazie chosen to pay into Healthy San Francisco,
instead of verifying that the Kaiser premiums and other expen-
ditures meet the legal requirement, Zazie would simply calcu-
late its required expenditure level and mail a quarterly check to
the City of San Francisco. This is what Medjool does.
* Ineligible or exempt employees include those who have
not yet been employed for ninety days, who work fewer than
eight hours per week, or who waive the expenditure requirement
because they are receiving health care services through another
emplover. S.¥. Admin. Code §14.1(b)(2), (b)(2)(c); (b)(2)(h); OLSE
Reg. No. 3.1(A)(2), 3.1(A\(3)(b), 3.2(A\(5).
" Because full-time employees and part-time employees
have slightly different health plans with different co-payments,
Zazie must perform the calculation twice. This is also true for
Medjool, which provides Kaiser coverage for some employees
and pays the City for the rest. This adds an insignificant
amount of time and effort.
12
expenditure to the amount it actually spends on
employee health care. If Zazie were spending less
than required, it would pay the difference to the City
of San Francisco, which would entitle Zazie’s
employees to additional benefits through the City’s
program. Because Zazie consistently spends more
than required, it need do nothing other than report
compliance annually.
Reporting takes Zazie no more than thirty
minutes per year. Every year, the City of San
Francisco mails Zazie a simple, one-page Mandatory
Annual Reporting form (App. 1) that asks how many
hours the restaurant’s employees worked, and how
much it spent on health care for them. Zazie returns
the form with its annual business registration sub-
mission to the City. See S.F. Admin. Code §14.3(b);
OLSE Reg. No. 7.3. That is all Zazie need do to
comply.
B. The Health Care Ordinance Overlaps
with and Requires Less Effort than
Other Existing Labor and Employment
Laws.
Amicus Washington Legal Foundation’s approach
is to break down each element of compliance into
enough detail to crush the spirit of any entrepreneur.
But this obfuscates the real-world context in which
the Health Care Ordinance operates and misleads the
Court. All across America and in San Francisco,
medium-sized business owners comply with myriad
13
labor and employment laws, many of them far more
onerous than the Health Care Ordinance, and many
of which already require the same records.
As a business owner, Zazie’s owner is accustomed
to complying with and keeping up to date with
multiple laws, including federal, state and local tax
laws and minimum wage laws. These laws all require
calculations, record keeping, and reporting. Zazie also
pays and tracks contributions to employee benefits
such as Worker’s Compensation and an employee
401(k) plan. As a restaurant, Zazie must also comply
with a host of other local, state, and federal laws,
including Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration (OSHA) standards and California Department
of Public Health Food Safety Program regulations
and guidelines. Taken in the context of the respon-
sibilities medium-sized business owners routinely
accept, adhering to the minimal requirements of the
Health Care Ordinance is no burden.
Comparing quarterly hours worked to health
care expenditures is no more burdensome than
fulfilling the requirements of other laws. The San
Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, for example,
requires businesses to document hours’ worked,
maintain payroll records for four year periods, and
allow the City to monitor compliance. See S.F. Admin.
Code §12R.5(c). Moreover, Zazie already records its
employees’ hours to comply with the Minimum Wage
Ordinance and other laws. Keeping track of health
care expenditures is also independently required in
order to qualify for the federal income tax exclusion
14
for employer-provided health insurance, Internal
Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §106(a).
Zazie has only one location, but restaurants with
multiple locations routinely comply with other regula-
tions that differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
including for employees who work in more than one
location. See, e.g., S.F. Admin. Code §12R; Oakland
Mun. Code §2.28.030 (differing minimum wage
ordinances in the neighboring cities of San Francisco
and Oakland).
Considered in the context of the other laws with
which Zazie must comply, the Health Care Ordinance
adds insignificant administrative responsibilities.
C. The Health Care Ordinance Gives
Zazie Choice and Flexibility.
The Health Care Ordinance gives employers a
broad range of choices: pay the City of San Francisco
to fund employce participation in the Health Access
Progrem (Healthy San Francisco) or medical reim-
bursement accounts, purchase private insurance
coverage, direct expenditures into a self-funded plan,
contribute to health savings or reimbursement
accounts, reimburse employees for health care ser-
vices received, or deliver health care services directly.
OLSE Reg. No. 4.2(A). Zazie provides direct coverage
to its employees through a Kaiser health plan.
Not only does the ordinance give Zazie a choice of
how to comply, it also allows employers like Zazie to
15
tailor benefits to the needs of their employees. With
advice from the insurance broker who provides
Zazie’s liability and umbrella coverage, Zazie elected
to cover the restaurant’s employees through Kaiser.
Because the staff is young and healthy but has
limited savings, Zazie chose a comprehensive plan
with relatively high co-payments ($30 for full-time
employees and $50 for part-time employees) but a
$1500 cap on out-of-pocket payments. Zazie pays just
over $50,000 for this coverage. After one year, Zazie
found that the $1 per customer surcharge was more
than enough to cover the Kaiser premiums, so in
April 2009 Zazie added dental insurance. The Health
Care Ordinance gives Zazie the flexibility to make
coverage decisions as it pleases.
The economic impact of the recession caused
Zazie to consider paying into Healthy San Francisco
instead of continuing the Kaiser coverage though
Zazie’s owner ultimately decided to keep the Kaiser
plan. Zazie finds both options equally simple, and
sees no obstacle to switching between them.”
Many other medium-sized business owners chose
to pay into Healthy San Francisco because it was the
cheaper option. Indeed, midway through 2008 over
700 employers had chosen to pay into the city plan,
* Indeed, Medjool has chosen to provide a Kaiser plan to
some employees and pay the City for others.
16
contributing $26 million on behalf of 31,000 workers.”
Other restaurant owners opened Health Reimburse-
ment Accounts for their employees. Congress did not
intend ERISA to preempt an ordinance that, similar
to a minimum wage law with a benefits component,
simply sets a floor for health care expenditures while
giving employers choice and flexibility.
Il. THE ORDINANCE BENEFITS THE PUB-
LIC AND PROTECTS WORKERS WHO
RISK LOSING THEIR HEALTH AND
EVEN THEIR LIVES WITHOUT IT.
Zazie’s staff is young and healthy but in 2008 an
employee who had been with the restaurant for
almost a decade called in sick because his stomach
hurt. Having only ever received uncompensated care
at the public hospital, he questioned what he should
do with the Kaiser card Zazie had given him. More-
over, based on previous, negative encounters with the
health care system as an uninsured patient, he was
loath to go to Kaiser. When his pain drove him to seek
care at the Kaiser hospital anyway, he was admitted
immediately with appendicitis. He had brought with
him $6000 of his personal savings in cash, because he
feared he would have to pay upfront for his medical
care as a condition of treatment. Because he had
* Mitchell Katz, Nat’] Acad. for State Health Policy and
State Coverage Initiatives, Providing Universal Access to Care:
Healthy San Francisco (2009), available at http://www.nashp.
org/files/ERISAwebcast_020609. pdf.
17
health coverage, he was charged only his Kaiser co-
insurance and averted not just a severe threat to his
health but also a $27,000 financial catastrophe. His
positive experience with the health care system is one
he now recounts to his co-workers, friends, and family
thereby encouraging them to access health care when
they need it as well. Not only does this benefit the
individuals involved, but it also spares taxpayers the
great expense of uninsured emergency room care.’”
Access to health care for restaurant employees
has public health implications as well. More than half
of all foodborne illness outbreaks reported in the
United States are associated with restaurants.’ Just
one sick restaurant worker can infect scores of cus-
tomers. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reported that in 2006, restaurant
The typical cost of an appendectomy at San Francisco
General Hospital totals more than $19,000. Emergency room
visits by uninsured patients at San Francisco General Hospital
declined by 70% from 2007 to 2008 (29,976 in the second quarter
of 2007 and 8,944 in the second quarter of 2008). Data from the
first quarter of 2009 show 5,560 visits, a 81% decline in emer-
gency room visits since 2007. Healthcare Information Division,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
State of California, Hospital Quarterly Financial and Utilization
Data Files (2007-2009), available at http://www.oshpd.state.ca.us/
hid/Products/Hospitals/Quatrly Finan Data/CmpleteData/default.asp.
'' Timothy F. Jones & Frederick J. Angulo, Eating in Res-
taurants: A Risk Factor for Foodborne Disease?, 43 Clinical In-
fectious Diseases 1324 (2006).
18
workers in a Michigan restaurant likely infected over
three hundred and fifty patrons with the norovirus.”
A review of foodborne disease outbreaks resulting
from contamination by food-service employees found
that 89% of the outbreaks occurred at food service
establishments and 93% of them involved employees
who were ill either prior to or at the time of the
outbreak.” In San Francisco and Los Angeles coun-
tics, between 11 and 12% of disease outbreaks involve
an ill food service worker.“ In the absence of an
employer contribution requirement, restaurant work-
ers with no health benefits may delay seeking
medical care or avoid care altogether.”
The Health Care Ordinance plays a crucial role
in protecting the health of workers and the public
without imposing unreasonable financial burdens on
individuals, taxpayers or employers.
1
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MMWR No
56, Norovirus Outbreak Associated with Ill Food-Service Workers
Michigan, January-February 2006, 1212 (2007).
1s
Jack Guzewich & Marianne P. Ross, Food and Drug
Admin., Evaluation of Risks Related to Microbiological Contam-
tration of Ready to-eat Food by Food Preparation Workers and
the Effectiveness of Interventions to Minimize Those Risks (1999).
‘““ Public Health Impacts on the Healthy Families Act:
Hearing on H.R. 2460 Before the Comm. on Educ. and Labor,
110th Cong. 6 (2009) (statement of Rajiv Bhatia, Director, Occu-
pational and Environmental Health, San Francisco Department
of Public Health).
15 ’
See generally Jones & Angulo, supra note 11.
19
Ili. THE ORDINANCE LEVELS THE PLAYING
FIELD FOR COVERED BUSINESSES
WITH MINIMAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ON
THEM.
Employer contribution requirements are widely
accepted policy solutions to the problem of the
working uninsured, and indeed have featured
prominently not only in local and state health reform
efforts but also in national health reform proposals
dating back to the Nixon administration in the 1970s
and, more recently, to the 1990 report of the Pepper
Commission (the Bipartisan Commission on Compre-
hensive Health Care). Maintaining workplace insur-
ance among employers willing to continue providing
it, while creating a relatively low-cost alternative for
employers that do not, is an idea with bipartisan
support that has appeared in health care reform
proposals from leading business groups.” Current
health reform efforts include Congressional proposals
with employer contribution requirements.
" Ken Jacobs & Jacob S. Hacker, Berkeley Ctr. on Health,
Econ. & Family Sec., How to Structure a “Play-or-Pay” Require-
ment on Employers: Lessons from California for National Health
Reform (2009).
20
A. Employer Mandates Protect Employ-
ers Like Zazie from Cost Shifting and
Adverse Selection.
Maintaining the structure of the employer
mandate in the Health Care Ordinance makes good
policy sense. Employer contribution requirements
level the playing field in several ways.
First, when some employers fail to provide health
care coverage to their employees, or provide it only to
an upper-echelon minority, it is well-documented that
this shifts costs onto employers that do provide
coverage. When uninsured individuals use health
care services and cannot pay for them, health care
providers make up for the uncompensated care by
charging health insurers more for insured patients
than what it actually costs to care for them. In-
surance companies in turn shift those cost increases
onto employers in the form of higher premiums.” The
cost shift is significant, amounting to a national
average of $1,100 per family premium and $410 per
“ Ben Furnas & Peter Harbage, Ctr. for Am. Progress
Action Fund, The Cost Shift from the Uninsured (2009); Families
USA, Pub. No. 05-101, Paying a Premium: The Added Cost of
Care for the Uninsured (2005); Inst. for Health Policy Solutions,
Covering Caltfornia’s Uninsured: Three Practical Options, Cal.
HealthCare Found. (2006); Peter Harbage & Len M. Nichols, A
Premium Price: The Hidden Costs All Californians Pay in Our
Fragmented Health Care System, in Issue Brief: New Am.
Found. 2006 (New Am. Found. Health Policy Program No. 3,
2006).
18
Furnas & Harbage, supra note 17.
21
individual premium; by 2013, it is expected to in-
crease to $1,300 and $480, respectively.’? In Cali-
fornia, the cost shift or excess payment by employers
that provide coverage to compensate for those that do
not is already $1,400 per family premium and $500
per individual premium.”
Second, employers that provide no coverage to
their employees shift costs onto employers that
provide spousal and dependent coverage.”’ Employers
resent the financial burden this cost-shifting creates.
Employers surveyed in twelve nationally representa-
tive metropolitan communities “complained that they
. were ‘subsidizing’ other employers.”” The Health
Care Ordinance alleviates the burden on employers
that wish to cover their employees.
" Id.
~ Je
*" See Eric E. Seiber & Curtis S. Florence, U.S. Small Bus.
Admin., Changes in Family Health Insurance Coverage for
Small and Large Firm Workers and Dependents: Evidence from
1995 to 2005 (2009) (finding that in 2005, 47% of small-firm
workers with a large-firm spouse, and 23.5% with a small-firm
spouse, were covered as dependents); see also Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation, Fact Sheet: Women’s Health Insurance
Coverage (2008) (finding that “[a]lthough job-based coverage
rates are similar for women and men, women are less likely to
be insured through their own job (39% vs. 49%, respectively) and
more likely to have dependent coverage (25% vs. 13%)” ).
“ Lydia E. Regopoulos & Sally Trude, Employers Shift
Rising Health Care Costs to Workers: No Long-term Solution in
Sight, in Issue Brief: Findings from HSC 2004 (Ctr. For Health
Sys. Change No. 83, 2004).
22
Finally, without an employer expenditure re-
quirement, employers that do provide health care
coverage face increased. costs through the effects of
adverse selection, as sicker employees who cost more
tend to seek out jobs with better benefits.”
By spreading the cost of employee health care
among all medium and large employers rather than
burdening just a few good actors with the cost of care,
the Health Care Ordinance creates a level playing
field for business.
B. The Health Care Ordinance Allows
Zazie To Provide Health Coverage to
Its Employees Without Facing a Com-
petitive Disadvantage.
Employers that do not provide health care
benefits have lower hourly employee wage costs than
those that provide such benefits, and absent a level
playing field can therefore compete with lower prices.
Before the ordinance went into effect, Zazie wanted to
provide health coverage to all its employees but could
not because doing so would have put the restaurant
at a competitive disadvantage. Zazie estimates that
the cost of health care would amount to 50% of its
profits were it not for the level playing field created
by the ordinance. Zazie now fully funds the cost
of health care through a $1 surcharge for every
“ Lawrence H. Summers, Some Simple Economics of Man-
dated Benefits, '79 Am. Econ. Rev. 177 (1989).
23
customer, a practice that 25% of all San Francisco
restaurants have now adopted in some form.” It is
safe to assume that most other restaurants also pass
on the cost to their customers through more tra-
ditional means, such as raising prices.
In addition, the majority of employers that fail to
cover all or most of their employees — including most
GGRA members before the ordinance went into
effect” — operate in industries in which their com-
petitors do not offer coverage to all employees either.”
“ The typical surcharge is 4% of the bill though some
restaurants lke Zazie use a specific dojJlar amount instead.
Carrie Colla, William H. Dow & Arindrajit Dube, UC Berkeley
School of Public Health, How Do Employers React to a Pay-or-
Play Mandate? Early Evidence from San Francisco, Mimeo
(2009). Other industries would be expected to pass on health
care costs in the form of price increases, as happens in response
to minimum wage requirements. See Daniel Aaronson, Price
Pass-Through and the Minimum Wage, 83 Rev. Econ. & Stat.
158 (2001).
” The most recent data available from a GGRA survey show
that in 2005, 86% of restaurants answering the survey offered
health insurance to at least some of their employees. Of these,
almost 60% offered health insurance to their full-time employees
(those working thirty-six hours or more per week), 25-30%
offered health insurance to their part-time employees working
twenty to thirty-five hours per week, and 2% offered health
insurance to their part-time employees working fewer than
twenty hours per week. Kent Sims, Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n,
Economics of the San Francisco Restaurant Industry (2005),
available at http://www. ggra.org/PDFS/Ec%20Study%2005. pdf.
*° See Arindrajit Dube & Michael Reich, Univ. of Cal. Inst.
for Labor and Employment, 2003 California Establishment Sur-
vey: Preliminary Results on Employer Based Healthcare Reform
(Continued on following page)
24
Zazie wanted to provide health insurance to all its
employees before the Health Care Ordinance passed,
but had no rational way to do so. Raising food prices
would put the restaurant at a competitive dis-
advantage, and the $1 surcharge that Zazie has now
adopted functions only because other restaurants in
the city pass on health care costs to customers as
well.
The Health Care Ordinance ensures fair, across-
the-board requirements for employers. Indeed,
research demonstrates conclusively that restaurants
in San Francisco experience no ill effects from the
Health Care Ordinance.” The ordinance creates an
opportunity for employers that wish to cover their
employees: it allows Zazie to pass on the cost of
health care to customers without impact on its ability
to compete.
(2003) (finding that retail, restaurants, hotels, construction, and
business services comprise the industry sectors with the
greatest share of the uninsured).
*” A comparison of San Francisco businesses to those in
surrounding areas found no indication that overall employment,
or employment in the restaurant industry, grew any slower in
San Francisco than in comparable surrounding areas after the
Health Care Ordinance passed. Colla, Dow & Dube, supra note
24.
25
C. Despite Petitioner’s Representations to
the Contrary, Most Medium-Sized Busi-
ness Owners Support Employer Con-
tribution Proposals Like the Health
Care Ordinance that Have Minimal
Economic Impact on Employers.
In a level-playing-field context, Zazie can provide
health care to its employees with no economic impact.
Zazie covers the cost of employee health care entirely
through a simple $1 surcharge. Indeed, the $1
surcharge funds not only Zazie’s Kaiser plan but also
dental coverage. Fewer than 1% of Zazie’s customers
have complained or even inquired about the sur-
charge and most who do ask out of curiosity. Zazie
reports full customer support for the surcharge and
the Health Care Ordinance.
Notably, a report by Small Business Majority
California found widespread support for an employer
contribution requirement from California business
owners employing fewer than 100 employees: among
respondents, fully 80% of business owners (including
76% that did not currently offer insurance and 84%
that did) felt that “employers should pay something
to provide healthcare to their employees.” Other
* Small Bus. for Affordable Healthcare, Small Bus. Major-
ity, California Small Bus. Healthcare Survey (2007).
26
employer surveys yield similar findings.” GGRA does
not fairly represent employer sentiment.”
D. Employer Mandates Play an Essential
Role in Preventing Crowd Out.
Public policy considerations support employer
mandates to reduce “crowd out,” or the temptation for
employers to drop the private insurance coverage
they do offer when other options become available to
their employees. Were the employer contribution
requirement to be struck down and the Healthy San
Francisco program to remain, as Petitioner advocates,
San Francisco would be left with a publicly-funded
program in which uninsured San Francisco residents
could enroll at great cost to taxpayers. This would
create powerful incentives for employers that cur-
rently offer coverage to their employees to drop the
* See San Mateo County Blue Ribbon Task Force on Adult
Health Care Coverage Expansion, Opinion Research Regarding
Health Coverage Expansion (2007), available at http://www.co.
sanmateo.ca.us (56% of business respondents in San Francisco’s
neighboring county support a plan in which all employers must
meet minimum health spending standards by offering health
insurance or paying into a county fund, and 72% support a plan
like San Francisco’s that exempts employers with fewer than
twenty employees). See also Dube & Reich, supra note 26 (64%
of business respondents support proposals that require
employers to either provide health insurance or pay a fee into a
state fund to cover the uninsured and 59% that currently do not
offer health insurance also support such a proposal).
*° Nor does GGRA fairly represent the sentiment of its
members as amicus Medjooi demonstrates.
27
coverage in favor of the Healthy San Francisco option
— now entirely free to them. Crowd out “is much more
likely when employers are not required to contribute
a meaningful amount to the cost of covering their
uninsured workers, because the cost of allowing their
workers to be covered through subsidized options is
so much lower.”
Other employer contribution options, such as an
across the board payroll tax with subsidies for the
Healthy San Francisco program, would frustrate the
employer flexibility goal of the Health Care Ordi-
nance and effectively force employers like Zazie to
drop private insurance in favor of the publicly
subsidized option. Besides encouraging crowd out, a
payroll tax would also create labor market distortions
and penalize employers that offer higher wages.
In sum, employer contribution requirements
benefit business and the economy. Expanding access
to health care raises productivity by improving
workers’ health, increasing their participation in the
labor force, decreasing absenteeism and disability,
reducing insurance-related “job-lock,” and allowing
an overall better match between employer needs and
employee skills.” By expanding access to health care,
employer contribution requirements reduce the likeli-
hood that employees will forego necessary medical
* Jacobs & Hacker, supra note 16.
32 Id
28
care or treatment for chronic conditions.” They pro-
tect employers from cost-shifting and adverse selec-
tion, allow employers to cover their employees
without unfair competition, and prevent crowd out.
They also enjoy broad business-community support.
The Health Care Ordinance is good public policy.
+
CONCLUSION
The Court should not take up the issues pre-
sented in this case. At every level of the proceedings,
Petitioner has failed to support the assertions it now
makes. Instead, Petitioner and its allies present dire
and improbable predictions based on mere specu-
latien. The Health Care Ordinance is a straight-
forward employer expenditure requirement grounded
in sound policy with real benefits to employers, em-
ployees, and the public.
" #2.
29
The Court should deny the petition for a writ of
certiorari.
Respectfully submitted,
MELISSA A. RODGERS*
*Counsel of Record
CHRISTOPHER EDLEY, JR.
STEPHEN D. SUGARMAN
BERKELEY CENTER ON HEALTH,
ECONOMIC & FAMILY SECURITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
SCHOOL OF LAW
2850 TELEGRAPH Avenue, Suite 500
Berkeley, California 94705
Telephone: (510) 643-4283
Facsimile: (510) 643-7095
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Zazte and Medyjool
August 24, 2009
ose PRIN Merete B CUR Fienwints NGL DIES VAL? A AAAI IY PRLgORS Go Rd NEES Pe Oe
bed (3 er, &\ RETURN TO: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT al
at P.O. BOX 7378
xk hed San Francisco, CA 94120-7378 FOR ASSISTANCE: Refer to the enclosed instructions, visit
Business Certificate Number http //www.sfgov.org/olse/hcso, or call (415) 654-7892
ye fh 4 FN ee Gane Tie US
Covered Employers must complete all of the questions below. Failure to do so
shall constitute a violation of § 14.3(b) of Crapter 14 of the SF Admin, Code
Violators shall be subject to penalties and other corrective action.
Business Name and Address
rs
151 Quarter 2n¢ Quarte arc Quarter 4\h Quarter
For each quarter, enter the following information January 1 March 2008 Agi to June 2008 July ‘o September 2008 October to Dace nber 20048
Number of Employees Employed per Week (anywhere) © 20-49 © 100499 10 249 © 100-499 10 2049 O 100-499 | O 2049 O 100-499
A NOTE: Employers wilh 19 of fewer employees are NOT covered
it the HCSO and should NOT compiste or file this form
O so9s O s+ O 5-9 O 500+ O 9-99 © 500+ O 50-99 © 500+
Me J sips vit fol eel tk NY ho ks Mae saat UY
Total Number of "Covered Employees”: Do no! count T
B1 employees exempt from coverage under this law, seo
instructions for more deteds |
Total Number of Employees Exempt From Coverage ) T
R2 Under the HCSO, inching those wito have sayred Voluntary | |
|
Waivers
Total Number of Hours Paid to Ali Covered Employees. Hours paid includes both hours worked and hours for which covered employees were entitled
to be paid wages, such as paid vacation hours, paid time off, and paid sick leave hours, but not exceeding 172 hours/month or 516 hours/quarter.
1st Quarer 2nd Quarter Jed Quarter 4th Quarter
C T T T
| | | |
a |
Total Amount of Health Care Expenditures Made for All Covered Employees (in wrole dollars, do not include commas or cents)
1st Quarer 2nd Quarter Sid Quarter 4th Quarter
ECL CO Eon
: —
E Breakdown of Health Care Expenditures Made by the Employer: Count each covered employee only once per quarter: # your business made more
than one type of health care expenditure for an employee, count that employes in the category in which the largest health care expenditure was made
health insurance coverage
Number of Covered Employees enrolicd in
self-insured group health plan. Please review the
instructions to determine if your plan meets the
definition of a self-insured plan. a —
Number of Covered Employees enrolled in :
E3 | health/medical reimbursement, spending, or savings |
account administered by a third party vendor
Tolal annual dollar amount of funds made available lo Covered Employees for 2008 ~ how much
E3{a)| the employer made available via third-party heaith/medica! reimbursement, spending, or savings §
accounts (in whole dodars; do not include commas or cents)
Total annua! dollar amount of reimbursements made to Covered Employees for 2008--howmuch = [TTT TT TT on
E3b)| employees were reimbursed via third-party heaithmedical reimbursement, spending, or savings 5
accounts (in whole douars; do not include commas or cents)
C1 Number of Covered Employees enrolled In group | ° | : : : ~~
E2 |
LIEELL TTT
Number of Covered Employees for whom the | l1
£4 | employer provided direct reimbursement or made | | | |
direct payments for health care expenses | | {
E4(a) Tota! apnvel dollar amount of funds made available io Covered Employees for 2008 — haw much 5 |
'{ the employer made available for direct reimbursements or payments {
Tota! annua! dollar amount of funds spent for Covered Employees tor 2008 how much Covered
E4(b)) Employees were reinibursed and/or how much was paid dwectly by the employer for Covered d
Employees’ health care expenses (in whole dollars; do nol include commas or cents)
| —
Number of Covered Employees for whom payment |
ES | was made for the City Option /inciudes both Healthy San |
Francisco and the City's Medical Rewnbursement Account) |
TT
| |
E6 | Other: (describe) |
oS
By submithng this report the above-named employer certifies tho 0 owing. (1) that the informabon on thes reporting form is correct: (2) Lia! a3 compensable hours oaid to the employees who performed work in (he
geographic houndanes of the City and County of San Franessco during the period eovered by this report are reported herern, (3) thal Ines repo, whether or not signed in the space provided below, is being
submitted by the employer or duly authorzed represer fa6ve of the erployer Under the laws af the State of Caifomia, | declare under perally of petjury that | have read the foregoing and thal itis (rue correct
and complet to the bes: of my knowledge and bebe! 3664
SIGN HERE 7 DATE ____, 2009 T a
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE __
| ‘ddy
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.