Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                    FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT                   
    ASSOCIATION, an incorporated non-
    profit trade association,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
    FRANCISCO,                                     No. 07-17370
    Defendant,
           D.C. No.
    and                         CV-06-06997-JSW
    SAN FRANCISCO CENTRAL LABOR
    COUNCIL; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
    INTERNATIONAL UNION, HEALTHCARE
    WORKERS-WEST; SERVICE
    EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
    LOCAL 1021; UNITE HERE LOCAL 2,
    Defendant-intervenors-Appellants.
    
    13909
    13910   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT                   
    ASSOCIATION, an incorporated non-
    profit trade association,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
    FRANCISCO,                                     No. 07-17372
    Defendant-Appellant,
           D.C. No.
    CV-06-06997-JSW
    and
    SAN FRANCISCO CENTRAL LABOR                     OPINION
    COUNCIL; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
    INTERNATIONAL UNION, HEALTHCARE
    WORKERS-WEST; SERVICE
    EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
    LOCAL 1021; UNITE HERE LOCAL 2,
    Defendant-intervenors.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    April 17, 2008—Pasadena, California
    Filed September 30, 2008
    Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt, and
    William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge William A. Fletcher
    13914   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    COUNSEL
    Stephen P. Berzon, Scott A. Kronland and Stacey M. Leyton,
    Altshuler Berzon, San Francisco, California, Vince Chhabria,
    Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco, California, for the
    appellants.
    Curtis A. Cole and Joshua Traver, Cole Pedroza, LLP, Pasa-
    dena, California, Richard C. Rybicki, Dickenson, Peatman, &
    Fogarty, Napa, California, Patrick Sutton, Dickenson, Peat-
    man & Fogarty, Santa Rosa, California, for the appellee.
    *****
    Leslie Robert Stellman, Hodes, Pessin & Katz, Towson,
    Maryland, for amicus National Federation of Independent
    Business Legal Foundation.
    Jon W. Breyfogle, Groom Law Group, Washington, D.C., for
    amicus American Benefits Council.
    James P. Baker, Jones Day, San Francisco, California, for
    amicus Employers Group.
    Jeffrey A. Berman, Sidley Austin, Los Angeles, California,
    for amicus California Chamber of Commerce.
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.   13915
    Thomas L. Cubbage, Covington & Burling, Washington,
    D.C., for amici ERISA Industry Committee and National
    Business Group of California.
    Edward D. Sieger, US Department of Labor, Washington,
    D.C., for amicus Secretary of Labor.
    Thomas M. Christina, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
    Stewart, Greenville, South Carolina, for amici International
    Franchise Association, National Association of Manufactur-
    ers, and Society for Human Resource Management, Michael
    D. Peterson, Washington, D.C., for amicus HP Policy Associ-
    ation.
    Eugene Scalia, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Washington D.C.,
    for amici Retail Industry Leaders Association and Chamber of
    Commerce of the United States.
    OPINION
    W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
    Plaintiff Golden Gate Restaurant Association (“the Associ-
    ation”) challenges the employer spending requirements of the
    newly enacted San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance
    (“the Ordinance”). The Association argues that the federal
    Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
    (“ERISA”) preempts the employer spending requirements of
    the Ordinance either because those requirements create a
    “plan” within the meaning of ERISA or because they “relate
    to” employers’ ERISA plans. On December 26, 2007, the dis-
    trict court granted the Association’s motion for summary
    judgment and enjoined the implementation of the employer
    spending requirements. Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City &
    County of San Francisco, 
    535 F. Supp. 2d 968
    , 970 (N.D. Cal.
    2007). On December 27, 2007, Defendant City and County of
    13916    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    San Francisco (“the City”) and Defendant-Intervenor labor
    unions requested that this court stay the judgment of the dis-
    trict court pending appeal. In an order filed January 9, 2008,
    we granted the stay. Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City &
    County of San Francisco (“Golden Gate”), 
    512 F.3d 1112
    ,
    1114 (9th Cir. 2008). We now reach the merits of the appeal.
    We hold that ERISA does not preempt the Ordinance.
    I.   Procedural History
    In July 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unan-
    imously passed the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordi-
    nance, and the mayor signed it into law. The Ordinance is
    codified at Sections 14.1 to 14.8 of the City and County of
    San Francisco Administrative Code. The Ordinance has two
    primary components: the Health Access Plan (“HAP”), and
    the employer spending requirements. The HAP1 is a City-
    administered health care program. It went into effect in the
    summer of 2007. In funding the HAP, the City “prioritize[s]
    services for low and moderate income persons.” S.F. Admin.
    Code § 14.2(d) (2007). According to the City’s web page, as
    of August 9, 2008, 27,395 persons had enrolled in the HAP.2
    Persons who already have health insurance or who live out-
    side of San Francisco are not eligible for the HAP. Instead,
    such persons may be entitled to establish medical reimburse-
    ment accounts with the City. As we will explain in detail
    below, the Ordinance also requires all covered employers to
    make a certain level of health care expenditures on behalf of
    their covered employees. The Association does not challenge
    the HAP. It challenges only the employer spending require-
    ments.
    The Association filed a complaint against the City on
    November 8, 2006, asking the district court to declare that
    1
    The HAP is now called “Healthy San Francisco.”
    2
    Healthy San Francisco, About Us, http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/
    about_us/Stats.aspx#.
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13917
    ERISA preempts the employer spending requirements, and
    seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the
    provisions of the Ordinance relating to those requirements.
    The San Francisco Central Labor Council, Service Employees
    International Union (SEIU) Local 1021, SEIU United Health-
    care Workers-West, and UNITE-HERE! Local 2 (collectively,
    “Intervenors”), successfully moved to intervene as defen-
    dants.
    On April 2, 2007, the City deferred implementation of the
    employer spending requirements until January 1, 2008. On
    July 13, 2007, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
    judgment. On December 26, 2007, the district court entered
    judgment for the Association, concluding that ERISA pre-
    empts the employer spending requirements. See Golden Gate
    Rest. Ass’n, 
    535 F. Supp. 2d at 979-80
    .
    On December 27, 2007, the City and Intervenors asked the
    district court to stay its judgment pending appeal. The district
    court denied the motion. On January 9, 2008, this court filed
    a published order granting the City’s motion for a stay of the
    district court’s judgment pending resolution of the City’s
    appeal. Golden Gate, 
    512 F.3d at 1127
    . Since that date, cov-
    ered employers have been required to make quarterly health
    care expenditures.
    On February 7, 2008, the Association filed an application
    with Justice Kennedy, as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit,
    for an order vacating our stay of the district court’s judgment.
    On February 21, after receiving the City’s response, Justice
    Kennedy denied the application. The United States Secretary
    of Labor subsequently filed an amicus brief in this court in
    support of the Association.
    On April 17, 2008, we heard oral argument on the merits
    of the City’s appeal. We now reverse the judgment of the dis-
    trict court and remand with instructions to enter summary
    judgment in favor of the City and Intervenors.
    13918   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    II.   Standard of Review
    “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment and, viewing the evidence in the light most favor-
    able to the non-moving party, determine whether there are any
    genuine issues of material fact for trial.” In re Syncor ERISA
    Litig., 
    516 F.3d 1095
    , 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). “ERISA preemp-
    tion is a question of law, which we also review de novo.”
    Elliot v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 
    337 F.3d 1138
    , 1141 (9th
    Cir. 2003).
    III.   The Ordinance
    The Ordinance mandates that covered employers make “re-
    quired health care expenditures to or on behalf of” certain
    employees each quarter. S.F. Admin. Code § 14.3(a). “Cov-
    ered employers” are employers engaging in business within
    the City that have an average of at least twenty employees
    performing work for compensation during a quarter, and non-
    profit corporations with an average of at least fifty employees
    performing work for compensation during a quarter. Id.
    § 14.1(b)(3), (11), (12). “Covered employees” are individuals
    who (1) work in the City, (2) work at least ten hours per
    week, (3) have worked for the employer for at least ninety
    days, and (4) are not excluded from coverage by other provi-
    sions of the Ordinance. Id. § 14.1(b)(2).
    The Ordinance sets the required health care expenditure for
    employers based on the Ordinance’s “health care expenditure
    rate.” Id. §§ 14.1(b)(8), 14.3(a). For-profit employers with
    between twenty and ninety-nine employees and non-profit
    employers with fifty or more employees must make health
    care expenditures at a rate of $1.17 per hour. For-profit
    employers with one hundred or more employees must make
    expenditures at a rate of $1.76 per hour. See City & County
    of San Francisco, Office of Labor Standards Enforcement,
    Regulations Implementing the Employer Spending Require-
    ment of the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.               13919
    (“ESR”), Reg. 5.2(A) (2007).3 Under the Ordinance, “[t]he
    required health care expenditure for a covered employer shall
    be calculated by multiplying the total number of hours paid
    for each of its covered employees during the quarter . . . by
    the applicable health care expenditure rate.” S.F. Admin.
    Code § 14.3(a).
    Regulations implementing the Ordinance specify that “[a]
    health care expenditure is any amount paid by a covered
    employer to its covered employees or to a third party on
    behalf of its covered employees for the purpose of providing
    health care services for covered employees or reimbursing the
    cost of such services for its covered employees.” ESR Reg.
    4.1(A). A “covered employer has discretion as to the type of
    health care expenditure it chooses to make for its covered
    employees.” ESR Reg. 4.2(A). Section 14.1(b)(7) of the Ordi-
    nance specifies that the definition of health care expenditure
    includ[es], but [is] not limited to
    (a) contributions by [a covered] employer
    on behalf of its covered employees to a
    health savings account as defined under
    section 223 of the United States Internal
    Revenue Code or to any other account hav-
    ing substantially the same purpose or effect
    without regard to whether such contribu-
    tions qualify for a tax deduction or are
    excludable from employee income;
    3
    On June 16, 2008, the City issued revised ESR regulations. Those revi-
    sions do not pertain to any of the regulations discussed in this opinion. See
    City & County of S.F. Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, Regula-
    tions Implementing the Employer Spending Requirement of the San Fran-
    cisco Health Care Security Ordinance (June 16, 2008), available at http://
    www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/olse/hcso/HCSO_Final_
    Regulations.pdf.
    13920   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    (b) reimbursement by such covered
    employer to its covered employees for
    expenses incurred in the purchase of health
    care services;
    (c) payments by a covered employer to a
    third party for the purpose of providing
    health care services for covered employees;
    (d) costs incurred by a covered employer in
    the direct delivery of health care services to
    its covered employees; and
    (e) payments by a covered employer to the
    City to be used on behalf of covered
    employees. The City may use these pay-
    ments to:
    (i) fund membership in the Health Access
    Program for uninsured San Francisco res-
    idents; and
    (ii) establish and maintain reimbursement
    accounts for covered employees, whether
    or not those covered employees are San
    Francisco residents.
    S.F. Admin. Code § 14.1(b)(7) (paragraphing added); see also
    ESR Reg. 4.2(A).
    If an employer does not make required health care expendi-
    tures on behalf of employees in some other way, it may meet
    its spending requirement by making payments directly to the
    City under § 14.1(b)(7)(e). See ESR Reg. 4.2(A). We refer to
    this option as the City-payment option. If an employer elects
    the City-payment option, its covered employees who satisfy
    age and income requirements and are “uninsured San Fran-
    cisco residents” may enroll in the HAP, and its other covered
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.     13921
    employees will be eligible for medical reimbursement
    accounts with the City. Covered employees may enroll in the
    HAP free of charge or at reduced rates. The HAP provides
    enrollees with “medical services with an emphasis on well-
    ness, preventive care and innovative service delivery.” S.F.
    Admin. Code § 14.2(f). A primary care provider at the enroll-
    ee’s “medical home” “develop[s] and direct[s] a plan of care
    for each [HAP] participant.” Id. § 14.2(e). Enrollees pay
    income-based “participation fees” and “point-of-service fees.”
    Regulations Implementing Health San Francisco and Medical
    Reimbursement Account Provisions of the San Francisco
    Health Care Security Ordinance, Reg. 4(a) (2007).
    An employer is exempt from making payments to the City
    if it makes health care expenditures under § 14.1(b)(7)(a)-(d)
    of at least $1.17 or $1.76 per hour (depending on the non-
    profit or for-profit status of the employer, and on the number
    of employees), and it is partially exempt to the extent that it
    makes lesser expenditures.
    The Ordinance requires covered employers to “maintain
    accurate records of health care expenditures, required health
    care expenditures, and proof of such expenditures made each
    quarter each year,” but it does not require them “to maintain
    such records in any particular form.” S.F. Admin. Code
    § 14.3(b)(i). Employers must provide the City with “reason-
    able access to such records.” Id. If an employer fails to com-
    ply with these requirements, the City will “presume[ ] that the
    employer did not make the required health expenditures for
    the quarter for which records are lacking, absent clear and
    convincing evidence otherwise.” Id. § 14.3(b)(ii).
    The Ordinance includes a special provision for employers
    with self-insured health plans. An employer providing “health
    coverage to some or all of its covered employees through a
    self-funded/self-insured plan” will “comply with the spending
    requirement . . . if the preceding year’s average expenditure
    rate per employee meets or exceeds the applicable expendi-
    13922   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    ture rate” for the employer. ESR Reg. 6.2(B)(2). Such
    employers do not need to keep track of their actual expendi-
    tures for each employee.
    Relevant to our analysis, there are five categories of
    employers under the Ordinance. First are employers that have
    no ERISA plans (“No Coverage Employers”). Second are
    employers that have ERISA plans for all employees, and that
    spend at least as much as the Ordinance’s required health care
    expenditure per employee (“Full High Coverage Employers”).
    Third are employers that have ERISA plans for some, but not
    all, employees, and that spend at least as much as the Ordi-
    nance’s required health care expenditure per employee for
    employees under the ERISA plan (“Selective High Coverage
    Employers”). Fourth are employers that have ERISA plans for
    all employees, but that spend less than the Ordinance’s
    required health care expenditure per employee (“Full Low
    Coverage Employers”). Fifth are employers that have ERISA
    plans for some, but not all, employees, and that spend less
    than the Ordinance’s required health care expenditure per
    employee for employees under the ERISA plan (“Selective
    Low Coverage Employers”).
    No Coverage Employers may choose to continue without
    any ERISA plans. In that event, they can make their required
    health care expenditures directly to the City. See ESR Reg.
    4.2(A)(6). If these employers choose, instead, to establish an
    ERISA plan, the Ordinance requires only that they make the
    required level of health care expenditures. They can do so by
    paying the full amount to the plan, or by paying part to the
    plan and part to the City. The Ordinance does not dictate
    which employees must be eligible for the plan, or what bene-
    fits a plan must provide. See ESR Reg. 4.2(A)(1)-(5).
    Full High Coverage Employers may choose to leave their
    ERISA plans intact and unaltered. So long as they maintain
    records to show that they are making the required health care
    expenditures, they comply with the Ordinance.
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.     13923
    Selective High Coverage Employers may choose to leave
    their ERISA plans intact and unaltered. In that event, for
    employees not covered by their ERISA plans, they can com-
    ply with the Ordinance by making the required health care
    expenditures to the City. See ESR Reg. 6.2(C) (“An employer
    may . . . choose to purchase health insurance for its full-time
    employees, but make payment to the City to fund part-time
    employees’ membership in the Health Access Program[.]”).
    Full Low Coverage Employers may choose to leave their
    ERISA plans intact and unaltered. In that event, they can
    comply with the Ordinance by making payments to the City
    in an amount equal to the difference between their expendi-
    tures for the ERISA plans and the required health care expen-
    ditures under the Ordinance. See ESR Reg. 6.2(D) (“[A]n
    employer who purchases a health insurance program with pre-
    miums that are less than the required expenditure . . . may
    choose to pay the remainder to the City to establish and main-
    tain medical reimbursement accounts for such employees.”).
    Selective Low Coverage Employers may choose to leave
    their ERISA plans intact and unaltered. In that event, they can
    comply with the Ordinance for employees enrolled in their
    ERISA plans by paying to the City the difference between
    their expenditures for the plans and the required health care
    expenditures under the Ordinance, and for employees not
    enrolled in their ERISA plans by paying to the City the full
    amount of the required health care expenditures.
    We make two observations about the Ordinance. First, the
    Ordinance does not require employers to establish their own
    ERISA plans or to make any changes to any existing ERISA
    plans. Employers may choose to make up the difference
    between their existing health care expenditures and the mini-
    mum expenditures required by the Ordinance either by alter-
    ing existing ERISA plans or by establishing new ERISA
    plans. However, they need not do so. The City-payment
    option allows employers to make payments directly to the
    13924   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    City, if they so choose, without requiring them to establish, or
    to alter existing, ERISA plans. If employers choose to pay the
    City, the employees for whom those payments are made are
    entitled to receive either discounted enrollment in the HAP or
    medical reimbursement accounts with the City.
    Second, the Ordinance is not concerned with the nature of
    the health care benefits an employer provides its employees.
    It is only concerned with the dollar amount of the payments
    an employer makes toward the provision of such benefits. An
    employer can satisfy its spending requirements by paying the
    City; it can satisfy those requirements by funding exclusively
    preventive care; it can satisfy those requirements by setting up
    an on-site clinic and reimbursing employees for the purchase
    of over-the-counter medications; or it can satisfy those
    requirements in some other manner, such as funding a tradi-
    tional ERISA plan. The Ordinance does not look beyond the
    dollar amount spent, and it does not evaluate benefits derived
    from those dollars.
    IV.   Discussion
    The Association argues that ERISA preempts the Ordi-
    nance either because it creates a “plan” within the meaning of
    ERISA or because it “relates to” employers’ ERISA plans
    within the meaning of ERISA. For the reasons that follow, we
    disagree.
    Crafted as a compromise between employers and employ-
    ees, ERISA has two primary purposes. First, from the per-
    spective of employees and other beneficiaries of ERISA
    plans, “ERISA was passed by Congress in 1974 to safeguard
    employees from the abuse and mismanagement of funds that
    had been accumulated to finance various types of employee
    benefits.” Massachusetts v. Morash, 
    490 U.S. 107
    , 112
    (1989). “In enacting ERISA, Congress’ primary concern was
    with the mismanagement of funds accumulated to finance
    employee benefits and the failure to pay employees benefits
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13925
    from accumulated funds. To that end, it established extensive
    reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary duty requirements to
    insure against the possibility that the employee’s expectation
    of the benefit would be defeated through poor management by
    the plan administrator.” 
    Id. at 115
     (citation and footnote omit-
    ted). Second, from the perspective of employers, “[t]he pur-
    pose of ERISA is to provide a uniform regulatory regime over
    employee benefit plans.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 
    542 U.S. 200
    , 208 (2004). Uniformity of regulation eases the
    administrative burdens on employers and plan administrators,
    thereby reducing costs to employers.
    A.   Presumption Against Preemption
    [1] We begin by noting that state and local laws enjoy a
    presumption against preemption when they “clearly operate[ ]
    in a field that has been traditionally occupied by the States.”
    De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Med. & Clinical Servs. Fund, 
    520 U.S. 806
    , 814 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). This
    presumption informs our preemption analysis. See Boggs v.
    Boggs, 
    520 U.S. 833
    , 840 (1997) (the fact that a state law
    “implement[s] policies and values lying within the traditional
    domain of the States . . . inform[s] [a] preemption analysis”).
    The presumption against preemption applies in ERISA cases.
    “[N]othing in the language of [ERISA] or the context of its
    passage indicates that Congress chose to displace general
    health care regulation, which historically has been a matter of
    local concern.” N.Y. State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue
    Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 
    514 U.S. 645
    , 661 (1995).
    “[T]he Court has established a presumption that Congress did
    not intend ERISA to preempt areas of traditional state regula-
    tion that are quite remote from the areas with which ERISA
    is expressly concerned — reporting, disclosure, fiduciary
    responsibility, and the like.” Rutledge v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fair-
    weather & Geraldson, 
    201 F.3d 1212
    , 1217 (9th Cir. 2000)
    (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted). Fur-
    ther, “ERISA pre-emption must have limits when it enters
    areas traditionally left to state regulation — such as the state’s
    13926   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    . . . regulation of health . . . matters.” Operating Eng’rs
    Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. JWJ Contracting Co., 
    135 F.3d 671
    , 677 (9th Cir. 1998).
    [2] The field in which the Ordinance operates is the provi-
    sion of health care services to persons with low or moderate
    incomes. State and local governments have traditionally pro-
    vided health care services to such persons. See Paul Star, The
    Social Transformation of American Medicine 185 (1982)
    (noting that other than the four-year period from 1879 to
    1883, when there was a National Board of Health, “public
    health remained almost entirely a state and local responsibili-
    ty”); id. at 181-82 (describing “the role of public dispensaries
    in treating the sick poor”); id. at 169 (describing the first
    phase of the hospital system in the United States, spanning
    1751 to 1850, in which there were charitable hospitals “and
    public hospitals, descended from almshouses and operated by
    municipalities [and] by counties”); id. at 171 (noting that
    “[p]ublic hospitals generally treated the poor [and] relied on
    government appropriations rather than fees”). The Ordinance
    uses a novel approach to the provision of health services to
    such persons, but operates in a field that has long been the
    province of state and local governments, thereby “imple-
    ment[ing] policies and values lying within the traditional
    domain of the States.” Boggs, 520 U.S. at 840.
    B.   Preemption Under ERISA
    ERISA governs “employee benefit plans,” including “em-
    ployee welfare benefit plans.” 
    29 U.S.C. § 1002
    (3). Section
    514(a) of ERISA states that ERISA preempts “any and all
    State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit
    plan” governed by ERISA. 
    29 U.S.C. § 1144
    (a). “A law
    ‘relate[s] to’ a covered employee benefit plan for purposes of
    § 514(a) if it [1] has a connection with or [2] reference to such
    a plan.” Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dil-
    lingham Constr., N.A., Inc. (“Dillingham”), 
    519 U.S. 316
    , 324
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13927
    (1997) (alterations in original; some internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    The Association and the amicus, the Secretary of Labor,
    make two central arguments. First, they argue that the City-
    payment option under the Ordinance creates an ERISA plan.
    This argument takes two forms. The Association argues in its
    brief that the Ordinance’s administrative obligations on
    employers, in combination with a reasonable person’s ability
    to ascertain “benefits, beneficiaries, source of financing, and
    procedures for receiving benefits,” creates an ERISA plan.
    The Secretary of Labor argues as amicus that the HAP itself
    is an ERISA plan. If either argument is correct, the Ordinance
    almost certainly makes an impermissible “reference to” an
    ERISA plan. Second, they argue that even if the City-payment
    option does not establish an ERISA plan, an employer’s obli-
    gation to make payments at a certain level — whether or not
    the payments are made to the City — “relates to” the ERISA
    plans of covered employers and is thus preempted. We
    address these arguments in turn.
    1.   The City-Payment Option Does Not Create an ERISA
    “Plan”
    If the City-payment option does not create an “employee
    welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA, the first
    argument fails. The district court concluded that employers’
    payments to the City do not create an ERISA plan. See Gol-
    den Gate Rest. Ass’n, 
    535 F. Supp. 2d at 976
     (Ordinance does
    not “create[ ] a separate de facto ERISA plan”). For the rea-
    sons that follow, we agree with the district court and hold that
    the City-payment option does not create an ERISA plan, de
    facto or otherwise. We first address the Association’s argu-
    ment. We then address the Secretary’s argument.
    13928    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    a.   Employers’ Administrative Obligations, and the Ability
    to Ascertain Benefits, Beneficiaries, Financing and
    Procedures
    [3] The first element of an employee welfare benefit plan
    is the existence of a “plan, fund or program.” Patelco Credit
    Union v. Sahni, 
    262 F.3d 897
    , 907 (9th Cir. 2001). In the con-
    text of ERISA, the phrase “plan, fund or program” is a term
    of art. As relevant to this case, an ERISA “plan” is an “em-
    ployee welfare benefit plan,” defined as
    [a]ny plan, fund, or program which . . . is . . . estab-
    lished or maintained by an employer or by an
    employee organization, or by both, to the extent that
    such plan, fund, or program was established or is
    maintained for the purpose of providing for its par-
    ticipants . . . , through the purchase of insurance or
    otherwise, . . . medical, surgical, or hospital care or
    benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, acci-
    dent, disability, death or unemployment . . . .
    
    29 U.S.C. § 1002
    (1); see also § 1002(3); Patelco Credit
    Union, 262 F.3d at 907.
    [4] The Supreme Court has emphasized that ERISA is con-
    cerned with “benefit plans,” rather than simply “benefits,”
    because “[o]nly ‘plans’ involve administrative activity poten-
    tially subject to employer abuse.” Fort Halifax Packing Co.
    v. Coyne, 
    482 U.S. 1
    , 16 (1987). This focus on “benefit plans”
    is consistent with the first underlying purpose of ERISA —
    protecting employees against the abuse and mismanagement
    of funds. If an employee’s expectation of a “benefit” presents
    “a danger of defeated expectations [that] is no different from
    the danger of defeated expectations of wages for services per-
    formed,” then the employer’s actions giving rise to that
    expectation do not amount to a “benefit plan” because such
    danger is one “Congress chose not to regulate in ERISA.”
    Morash, 
    490 U.S. at 115
    .
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.    13929
    [5] Two Supreme Court cases tell us that an employer’s
    obligation to make monetary payments based on the amount
    of time worked by an employee, over and above ordinary
    wages, does not necessarily create an ERISA plan. This is so
    even if the payments are made by the employer directly to the
    employees who are the beneficiaries of the putative “plan.”
    First, in Fort Halifax, a Maine statute required an employer
    to pay employees one week’s pay for every year worked if the
    employees were terminated because of a plant closing. The
    Court held that the statute did not create a “plan” within the
    meaning of ERISA: “The Maine statute neither establishes,
    nor requires an employer to maintain, an employee benefit
    plan. The requirement of a one-time, lump-sum payment trig-
    gered by a single event requires no administrative scheme
    whatsoever to meet the employer’s obligation.” Id. at 12.
    Second, in Massachusetts v. Morash, 
    490 U.S. 107
    , 109
    (1989), a Massachusetts statute required employers to pay dis-
    charged employees their “full wages, including holiday or
    vacation payments, on the date of discharge.” The Court held
    that the statute was not preempted by ERISA. The Court
    wrote, “It is unlikely that Congress intended to subject to
    ERISA’s reporting and disclosure requirements those vacation
    benefits which by their nature are payable on a regular basis
    from the general assets of the employer and are accumulated
    over time only at the election of the employee.” 
    Id. at 116
    .
    The Court in Morash emphasized the importance of the fact
    that the employer made the payments out of its general assets:
    An entirely different situation would be presented if
    a separate fund had been created by a group of
    employers to guarantee the payment of vacation ben-
    efits to laborers who regularly shift their jobs from
    one employer to another. Employees who are benefi-
    ciaries of such a trust face far different risks and
    have far greater need for the reporting and disclosure
    requirements that the federal law imposes than those
    13930   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    whose vacation benefits come from the same fund
    from which they receive their paychecks.
    
    Id. at 120
    .
    [6] The employer payments at issue under the San Fran-
    cisco Ordinance, which the Association contends create an
    ERISA plan, are not made directly to employees. Rather, they
    are made to the City. But even if the employers made the pay-
    ments directly to the employees, Fort Halifax and Morash
    indicate that those payments would not be enough to create an
    ERISA plan. Under the Ordinance, employers make the pay-
    ments on a regular periodic basis and calculate those pay-
    ments based on the number of hours worked by the employee.
    Further, as in Morash, employers make the payments “on a
    regular basis from [their] general assets.” If employers made
    the payments directly to the employees, there would be little
    to differentiate those payments from wages paid to employ-
    ees. Indeed, the City allows employers to pay the City on a
    weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis, so that employers may
    coordinate their payments under the Ordinance with their
    employees’ regular pay periods. See ESR Reg. 6.2(A)(2).
    [7] The fact that an employer makes its payments to the
    City rather than to the employees confirms, if confirmation
    were needed, that the employer’s administrative obligations
    under the City-payment option do not create an ERISA plan.
    Under the Ordinance, an employer has no responsibility other
    than to make the required payments for covered employees,
    and to retain records to show that it has done so. The pay-
    ments are made for a specific purpose, but the employer has
    no responsibility for ensuring that the payments are actually
    used for that purpose. The Association points to the burden
    entailed in keeping track of which workers perform qualifying
    work in San Francisco, keeping track of the hours those
    employees work, and keeping track of the credit (if any) an
    employer should get for health care payments made to non-
    City entities. This burden is not enough, in itself, to make the
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.     13931
    payment obligation an ERISA plan. Many federal, state and
    local laws, such as income tax withholding, social security,
    and minimum wage laws, impose similar administrative obli-
    gations on employers; yet none of these obligations consti-
    tutes an ERISA plan.
    We have emphasized that an employer’s administrative
    duties must involve the application of more than a modicum
    of discretion in order for those administrative duties to
    amount to an ERISA plan. It is within the exercise of that dis-
    cretion that an employer has the opportunity to engage in the
    mismanagement of funds and other abuses with which Con-
    gress was concerned when it enacted ERISA. In Bogue v.
    Ampex Corp., 
    976 F.2d 1319
    , 1323 (9th Cir. 1992), we con-
    cluded that the employer, in determining whether an
    employee was eligible for severance pursuant to an employ-
    ment agreement, “was obligated to apply enough ongoing,
    particularized, administrative, discretionary analysis to make
    the [severance] program in this case a ‘plan.’ ” In Velarde v.
    Pace Membership Warehouse, Inc., 
    105 F.3d 1313
    , 1317 (9th
    Cir. 1997), we emphasized that in order to amount to a “plan,”
    the agreement must require the employer to apply more than
    “some modicum of discretion.” There must be “enough ongo-
    ing, particularized, administrative, discretionary analysis to
    make the plan an ongoing administrative scheme.” 
    Id.
    (emphasis in original; citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    [8] An employer’s administrative obligations under the
    City-payment option do not run the risk of mismanagement of
    funds or other abuse. To be sure, employers must keep track
    of the number of hours their employees work and whether
    those hours are worked in San Francisco or elsewhere.
    Employers must also determine whether particular employees
    are “supervisorial” or “managerial,” and thereby not covered
    employees. S.F. Admin. Code § 14.1(b)(2)(d). An employer
    may have some incentive to minimize the number of covered
    employees or the number of reported hours worked in San
    13932   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    Francisco, but the employer has no discretion under the Ordi-
    nance to alter its books to reduce its quarterly spending obli-
    gation. Rather, the employer’s administrative obligations
    involve mechanical record-keeping, and the employer’s pay-
    ments to the City “are typically fixed, due at known times,
    and do not depend on contingencies outside the employee’s
    control.” Morash, 
    490 U.S. at 115
    . Any potentially subjective
    judgments involved with making these calculations and main-
    taining these records amount to nothing more than the exer-
    cise of “a modicum of discretion.”
    [9] The Association contends that the administrative burden
    on the covered employers, combined with the reasonable
    ascertainability of benefits to employees, creates an ERISA
    plan. The Association contends that the employer’s obligation
    to make payments to the City satisfies the criteria for a plan
    set forth in Donovan v. Dillingham, 
    688 F.2d 1367
    , 1370-73
    (11th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Quoting Donovan, the Association
    argues, “Plan creation requires only that ‘a reasonable person
    could ascertain the intended benefits, beneficiaries, source of
    financing, and procedures for receiving benefits.’ Donovan,
    
    688 F.2d at 1373
    .” We have relied on these criteria from Don-
    ovan in three primary circumstances in this circuit: in Scott v.
    Gulf Oil Corp., 
    754 F.2d 1499
     (9th Cir. 1985), in Mod-
    zelewski v. Resolution Trust Corp., 
    14 F.3d 1374
     (9th Cir.
    1994), and in Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Ins.
    Co., 
    321 F.3d 933
     (9th Cir. 2003).
    In Scott, we relied on the criteria set forth in Donovan to
    hold that an agreement to provide severance pay to terminated
    employees at a rate of two weeks’ salary for each year of
    employment was sufficient to establish an ERISA plan. 
    754 F.2d at 1503-04
    . The outcome of Scott is almost certainly no
    longer good law in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent
    decisions in Fort Halifax and Morash.
    In Modzelewski, we set forth the Donovan factors in deter-
    mining whether an employer’s promise to pay its employees
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13933
    monthly installments upon retirement amounted to a de facto
    pension plan. 
    14 F.3d at 1376
    . We concluded that “[b]ecause
    ERISA’s definition of a pension plan is so broad, virtually
    any contract that provides for some type of deferred compen-
    sation will also establish a de facto pension plan.” 
    14 F.3d at 1377
    . Because ERISA’s definition of “employee pension ben-
    efit plan” is distinct from its definition of “employee welfare
    benefit plan,” Modzelewski is not relevant to our analysis
    here. See 
    29 U.S.C. § 1002
    (1), (2)(A); see also Carver v.
    Westinghouse Hanford Co., 
    951 F.2d 1083
    , 1086 (9th Cir.
    1991).
    In Winterrowd, we held that an accepted offer to provide
    termination benefits was not sufficiently specific in describing
    benefits to satisfy the Donovan criteria, and that the offer
    therefore did not constitute an ERISA plan. 
    321 F.3d at 939
    .
    We did not hold in Winterrowd that an agreement satisfying
    the Donovan criteria, without more, constituted an ERISA
    plan. Rather, we held that an agreement not satisfying the
    Donovan criteria did not constitute an ERISA plan. In other
    words, satisfying the Donovan criteria was a necessary but not
    sufficient condition for the creation of an ERISA plan. See
    Curtis v. Nev. Bonding Corp., 
    53 F.3d 1023
    , 1028 (9th Cir.
    1995) (concluding that the Donovan criteria were not satis-
    fied, and noting that “our court has not yet determined the
    minimum requirements for establishing the existence of an
    ERISA plan”); see also Cinelli v. Sec. Pac. Corp., 
    61 F.3d 1437
    , 1442-44 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that because the
    Donovan criteria were not present there was no de facto
    employee welfare benefit plan).
    [10] The Association has not cited, and we have not discov-
    ered, any cases in which this court has applied the Donovan
    criteria to an employer’s administrative obligations imposed
    by a state or local law. All of the cases applying the Donovan
    criteria address the question whether an informal, or de facto,
    ERISA plan has been established, and all involve some type
    of unwritten or informal promise made by an employer to its
    13934   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    employees. We would be very hesitant to hold that the Dono-
    van criteria apply to statutory administrative burdens imposed
    on an employer where, as here, that employer has made no
    promises whatsoever to its employees, which is what the
    Association urges us to do. We share the view expressed by
    the Seventh Circuit in Sandstrom v. Cultor Food Science,
    Inc., 
    214 F.3d 795
     (7th Cir. 2000):
    It is not clear that the approach taken in [Donovan]
    is compatible with more recent decisions of the
    Supreme Court, which emphasize different consider-
    ations when asking whether an informal policy or
    arrangement is a “plan.” Both Morash and Ft. Hali-
    fax evince reluctance to find that regular and predict-
    able awards of severance or vacation payments
    establish a “plan,” given the frequency with which
    these benefits are the subject of bilateral negotiations
    between employers and departing employees.
    
    Id. at 797
     (citations omitted).
    But we need not reach the question whether Donovan
    applies, for, in any event, its criteria are not satisfied. For
    employers who choose to make payments to the City, their
    obligation ceases as soon as they make the required payments.
    If an employer has made such payments to the City under the
    Ordinance, covered employees may enroll in the HAP free of
    charge or at a discounted rate. But as we will explain in more
    detail in a moment, there is nothing in the Ordinance that
    guarantees that a certain level or kind of “intended benefits”
    will be provided by the HAP, or that a particular group of “in-
    tended . . . beneficiaries” will be included in the HAP.
    b.   The HAP as an ERISA Plan
    The Association expressly stated in its complaint that it
    “wholeheartedly supports the San Francisco Health Access
    Program and its laudable goals.” It requested that the district
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.             13935
    court “issue declaratory and injunctive relief without disturb-
    ing all other lawful parts of the Ordinance unrelated to” the
    employer spending requirement. (Emphasis in original.) The
    Secretary of Labor, as amicus curiae, argues that the HAP
    itself is an ERISA plan. If the Secretary is right, ERISA pre-
    empts not merely the employer spending requirements, but
    the HAP itself. We need not consider arguments raised solely
    by an amicus, particularly when they were not raised before
    the district court and when they are in tension with the strate-
    gic positions taken by the litigants. See Russian River Water-
    shed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 
    142 F.3d 1136
    , 1141
    n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Further, we need not consider arguments
    raised for the first time on appeal. Choe v. Torres, 
    525 F.3d 733
    , 740 n.9 (9th Cir. 2008). We address the Secretary’s argu-
    ment to indicate our disagreement with it, but we do not con-
    cede the correctness of the Secretary’s implicit assumption
    that the argument is properly before us.
    [11] As described in greater detail above, the first element
    of an employee welfare benefit plan is the existence of a
    “plan, fund or program.” Patelco Credit Union, 262 F.3d at
    907. The HAP, administered by the City, is not an ERISA
    plan. Rather, the HAP is a government entitlement program
    available to low- and moderate-income residents of San Fran-
    cisco, regardless of employment status.4 It is funded primarily
    4
    The Secretary also argues that the HAP operates as “a government-run
    program for private employers,” and therefore it is not entitled to the
    exemption under 
    29 U.S.C. § 1003
    (b)(1) from ERISA regulations. The
    ERISA exemption to which the Secretary refers applies when a govern-
    ment establishes and maintains an employee welfare benefit plan for its
    own employees. See id.; see also 
    29 U.S.C. § 1002
    (32). As the Secretary
    correctly notes, a government plan of that type loses its exemption when
    it opens up its plan to employees of private employers. The Secretary’s
    argument is that the City has opened its exempt plan for its own employ-
    ees to private employees and has thus forfeited its exemption. The Secre-
    tary’s argument is without foundation. The City does maintain an exempt
    employee welfare benefit plan for its own employees. The HAP, however,
    is not that plan. The City has never argued that the HAP is exempt from
    ERISA as a government-run plan for the City’s own employees.
    13936   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    by taxpayer dollars. Employer payments under the Ordinance
    provide only a small portion of the HAP’s funding, and,
    although we do not know the precise numbers, employees
    covered under the Ordinance comprise substantially less than
    half of all HAP enrollees. The fact that a minority of HAP
    enrollees pay a discounted enrollment fee because their
    employers participate in the City-payment option is not
    enough to make the HAP a “plan, fund or program” within the
    meaning of ERISA. See Waks v. Empire Blue Cross/Blue
    Shield, 
    263 F.3d 872
    , 875 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding that a
    converted individual policy was not itself an ERISA plan
    because the policy “covered [the plaintiff] as an individual
    and not as an employee of . . . any . . . employer”).
    [12] The second element of an employee welfare benefit
    plan requires that the plan be “established or maintained by an
    employer through the purchase of insurance or otherwise.”
    Patelco Credit Union, 262 F.3d at 907. An employer electing
    the City-payment option does not “establish[ ] or maintain[ ]”
    the HAP through its payments. The HAP exists, and will con-
    tinue to exist, whether or not any covered employer makes a
    payment to the City under the Ordinance. Further, the
    employer has no control over whether its employees are eligi-
    ble for the HAP. Under the terms of the ordinance, HAP eligi-
    bility is based on income level, age, uninsured status, and City
    residence, but the City is free to change the conditions of eli-
    gibility for HAP enrollment as it sees fit simply by amending
    the Ordinance. Finally, neither the employer nor the covered
    employee has any control over the kind and level of benefits
    provided by the HAP. The employer never negotiates or signs
    a contract with the City, and the employer has no control over
    the City’s coverage decisions. When the City administers the
    HAP, it does not act as the employer’s agent entrusted to ful-
    fill the benefits promises the employer made to its employees.
    An employer can make no promises to its employees with
    regard to the HAP or its coverage. In short, the City, rather
    than the employer, establishes and maintains the HAP, and
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13937
    the City is free to change the kind and level of benefits as it
    sees fit.
    2.   “Relates to” Employers’ ERISA Plans
    The Association’s and the Secretary of Labor’s second
    argument is that, even if the City-payment option does not
    create an ERISA plan, the Ordinance is preempted because it
    “relates to” employers’ ERISA plans. 
    29 U.S.C. § 1144
    (a).
    [13] Section 514(a) of ERISA states that ERISA preempts
    “any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any
    employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA. 
    29 U.S.C. § 1144
    (a). The Supreme Court has established a two-part
    inquiry to interpret § 514(a): “A law ‘relate[s] to’ a covered
    employee benefit plan for purposes of § 514(a) if it [1] has a
    connection with or [2] reference to such a plan.” Dillingham,
    
    519 U.S. at 324
     (alterations in original) (some internal quota-
    tion marks omitted). We consider these two inquiries in turn.
    a.   “Connection with” a Plan
    In New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield
    Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co., 
    514 U.S. 645
    , 655 (1995),
    the Court acknowledged the difficulty of interpreting
    § 514(a):
    If “relate to” were taken to extend to the furthest
    stretch of its indeterminacy, then for all practical
    purposes pre-emption would never run its course
    . . . . But that, of course, would be to read Congress’s
    words of limitation as mere sham, and to read the
    presumption against pre-emption out of the law
    whenever Congress speaks to the matter with gener-
    ality.
    Likewise, the Court recognized that the two-part inquiry it
    had adopted to interpret § 514(a) did not provide much addi-
    13938   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    tional guidance in cases hinging on a law’s “connection with”
    an employee benefit plan. “For the same reasons that infinite
    relations cannot be the measure of pre-emption, neither can
    infinite connections.” Id. at 656.
    We read Travelers as narrowing the Court’s interpretation
    of the scope of § 514(a). The Court reasoned it had to “go
    beyond the unhelpful text and the frustrating difficulty of
    defining [§ 514(a)’s] key term, and look instead to the objec-
    tives of the ERISA statute as a guide to the scope of the state
    law that Congress understood would survive.” Id.; see also
    Gerosa v. Savasta & Co., 
    329 F.3d 317
    , 327 (2d Cir. 2003)
    (discussing how, among the circuits, the Travelers decision
    “occasioned a significant change in preemption analysis, and
    required careful reconsideration of any preexisting precedent
    dependent on the expansive view of ‘related to’ that held
    sway before it”). In this light, we employ a “holistic analysis
    guided by congressional intent.” Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins.
    Co. of Am., 
    269 F.3d 974
    , 981 n.15 (9th Cir. 2001); see e.g.,
    Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 
    532 U.S. 141
    , 147 (2001).
    As noted above, one “purpose of ERISA is to provide a
    uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.”
    Davila, 
    542 U.S. at 208
    . The purpose of ERISA’s preemption
    provision is to “ensure[ ] that the administrative practices of
    a benefit plan will be governed by only a single set of regula-
    tions.” Fort Halifax Packing Co., 
    482 U.S. at 11
    . In Ingersoll-
    Rand Co. v. McClendon, 
    498 U.S. 133
    , 142 (1990), the Court
    explained that
    Section 514(a) was intended to ensure that plans and
    plan sponsors would be subject to a uniform body of
    benefits law; the goal was to minimize the adminis-
    trative and financial burden of complying with con-
    flicting directives among States or between States
    and the Federal Government. Otherwise, the ineffi-
    ciencies created could work to the detriment of plan
    beneficiaries.
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.      13939
    [14] In furtherance of ERISA’s goal of ensuring that “plans
    and plan sponsors [are] subject to a uniform body of benefits
    laws,” the Court in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 
    532 U.S. 141
     (2001),
    struck down a Washington State law that directed a choice of
    beneficiary that conflicted with the choice provided in an
    ERISA plan. The Court held that a state or local law has an
    impermissible “connection with” ERISA plans where it
    “binds ERISA plan administrators to a particular choice of
    rules for determining beneficiary status[,] . . . rather than
    [allowing administrators to pay the benefits] to those identi-
    fied in the plan documents.” 
    Id. at 147
    . Similarly, in Shaw v.
    Delta Air Lines, 
    463 U.S. 85
    , 97-100 (1983), the Court held
    that ERISA preempts state laws “which prohibit[ ] employers
    from structuring their employee benefit plans” in a particular
    manner or “which require[ ] employers to pay employees spe-
    cific benefits.”
    Consistent with these later-decided cases, in Standard Oil
    Co. v. Agsalud, 
    633 F.2d 760
    , 763 (9th Cir. 1980), aff’d mem.,
    
    454 U.S. 801
     (1981), we struck down a Hawaii statute that
    “require[d] employers in that state to provide their employees
    with a comprehensive prepaid health care plan.” As the dis-
    trict court noted, the statute required that plan benefits include
    “a combination of features,” and specifically “require[d] that
    the plans cover diagnosis and treatment of alcohol and drug
    abuse.” Standard Oil Co. v. Agsalud, 
    442 F. Supp. 695
    , 696,
    704 (N.D. Cal. 1977). The statute also imposed “certain
    reporting requirements which differ[ed] from those of
    ERISA.” 
    Id. at 696
    . In affirming the district court’s opinion
    holding the Hawaii statute preempted under ERISA, we
    emphasized that the statute “directly and expressly regulate[d]
    employers and the type of benefits they provide employees,”
    and that it therefore “related to” ERISA plans under § 514(a).
    Agsalud, 
    633 F.2d at 766
     (emphasis added). That is, the
    Hawaii statute was preempted because it required employers
    to have health plans, and it dictated the specific benefits
    employers were to provide through those plans. 
    Id.
     The stat-
    ute thereby impeded ERISA’s goal of ensuring that “plans
    13940   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    and plan sponsors would be subject to a uniform body of ben-
    efits law.” Ingersoll-Rand Co., 
    498 U.S. at 142
    .
    [15] The Ordinance in this case stands in stark contrast to
    the laws struck down in Egelhoff, Shaw and Agsalud. The
    Ordinance does not require any employer to adopt an ERISA
    plan or other health plan. Nor does it require any employer to
    provide specific benefits through an existing ERISA plan or
    other health plan. Any employer covered by the Ordinance
    may fully discharge its expenditure obligations by making the
    required level of employee health care expenditures, whether
    those expenditures are made in whole or in part to an ERISA
    plan, or in whole or in part to the City. The Ordinance thus
    preserves ERISA’s “uniform regulatory regime.” See Davila,
    
    542 U.S. at 208
    . The Ordinance also has no effect on “the
    administrative practices of a benefit plan,” Fort Halifax Pack-
    ing Co., 
    482 U.S. at 11
    , unless an employer voluntarily elects
    to change those practices.
    A covered employer may choose to adopt or to change an
    ERISA plan in lieu of making the required health care expen-
    ditures to the City. An employer may be influenced by the
    Ordinance to do so because, when faced with an unavoidable
    obligation to make a payment at a certain level, it may prefer
    to make that payment to an ERISA plan. However, as Travel-
    ers makes clear, such influence is entirely permissible.
    In Travelers, a New York statute required hospitals to col-
    lect surcharges from patients covered by commercial insur-
    ance companies, including those administering ERISA plans,
    but not from patients covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield
    plans. The difference in treatment was justified on the ground
    that “the Blues pay the hospitals promptly and efficiently and,
    more importantly, provide coverage for many subscribers
    whom the commercial insurers would reject as unacceptable
    risks.” Travelers, 
    514 U.S. at 658
    . The Court recognized that
    the surcharge might influence “choices made by insurance
    buyers, including ERISA plans.” 
    Id. at 659
    . But such an influ-
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.       13941
    ence was not fatal to the New York statute: “An indirect eco-
    nomic influence . . . does not bind plan administrators to any
    particular choice and thus function as a regulation of an
    ERISA plan itself[.] . . . Nor does the indirect influence of the
    surcharges preclude uniform administrative practice[.]” 
    Id. at 659-60
    .
    In this case, the influence exerted by the Ordinance is even
    less direct than the influence in Travelers. In Travelers, the
    required surcharge on benefits provided under ERISA plans
    administered by commercial insurers inescapably changed the
    cost structure for those plans’ health care benefits and thereby
    exerted economic pressure on the manner in which the plans
    would be administered. Here, by contrast, the Ordinance does
    not regulate benefits or charges for benefits provided by
    ERISA plans. Its only influence is on the employer who,
    because of the Ordinance, may choose to make its required
    health care expenditures to an ERISA plan rather than to the
    City.
    Further, the Ordinance does not “bind[ ] ERISA plan
    administrators to a particular choice of rules” for determining
    plan eligibility or entitlement to particular benefits. See Egel-
    hoff, 
    532 U.S. at 147
    . Employers may “structur[e] their
    employee benefit plans” in a variety of ways and need not
    “pay employees specific benefits.” See Shaw, 
    463 U.S. at 97
    .
    The Ordinance affects employers, but it “leave[s] plan admin-
    istrators right where they would be in any case.” Travelers
    Ins. Co., 
    514 U.S. at 662
    . See also WSB Elec., Inc. v. Curry,
    
    88 F.3d 788
    , 793 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The scheme does not force
    employers to provide any particular employee benefits or
    plans, to alter their existing plans, or to even provide ERISA
    plans or employee benefits at all.”); Keystone Chapter, Asso-
    ciated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Foley, 
    37 F.3d 945
    , 960
    (3d Cir. 1994) (“Where a legal requirement may be easily sat-
    isfied through means unconnected to ERISA plans, and only
    relates to ERISA plans at the election of an employer, it
    affects employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or
    13942   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law ‘relates
    to’ the plan.”) (some internal quotation marks omitted).
    [16] Finally, the Ordinance does not impose on plan admin-
    istrators any “administrative [or] financial burden of comply-
    ing with conflicting directives” relating to benefits law.
    Ingersoll-Rand Co., 
    498 U.S. at 142
    . The Ordinance does
    impose an administrative burden on covered employers, for
    they must keep track of their obligations to make expenditures
    on behalf of covered employees and must maintain records to
    show that they have complied with the Ordinance. But these
    burdens exist whether or not a covered employer has an
    ERISA plan. Thus, they are burdens on the employer rather
    than on an ERISA plan. See WSB Elec., Inc., 
    88 F.3d at 795
    (rejecting the argument that a law “is preempted because it
    imposes additional administrative burdens regarding benefits
    contributions on the employer,” where it did “not impose any
    additional burden on ERISA plans or require the employer to
    take any action with regard to those plans”) (emphasis in orig-
    inal).
    b.   “Reference to” a Plan
    To determine whether a law has a forbidden “reference to”
    ERISA plans, we ask whether (1) the law “acts immediately
    and exclusively upon ERISA plans,” or (2) “the existence of
    ERISA plans is essential to the law’s operation.” Dillingham,
    
    519 U.S. at 325
    .
    Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 
    486 U.S. 825
     (1988), demonstrates that the Ordinance is not pre-
    empted under the first part of the inquiry. In Mackey, the
    Court held that ERISA preempted a provision of a state gar-
    nishment statute that specifically exempted ERISA benefits
    from the operation of the statute, even while the statute sub-
    jected other assets to garnishment. 
    Id. at 828-29
    . The Court
    noted that the provision “solely applie[d] to” ERISA plans,
    and “single[d] out ERISA . . . plans for different treatment
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.       13943
    under state” law. 
    Id. at 829-30
    . At the same time, however,
    the Court upheld those aspects of the state statute that did “not
    single out or specially mention ERISA plans of any kind,”
    even though they would potentially subject ERISA plans to
    “substantial administrative burdens and costs.” 
    Id. at 831
    . In
    Dillingham, the Court characterized the preempted statute in
    Mackey as “act[ing] immediately and exclusively upon
    ERISA plans.” Dillingham, 
    519 U.S. at 325
    . Here, unlike the
    preempted statute in Mackey, the Ordinance does not act on
    ERISA plans at all, let alone immediately and exclusively.
    Two cases demonstrate that the Ordinance is not preempted
    under the second part of the inquiry. The first is Ingersoll-
    Rand Co. v. McClendon, 
    498 U.S. 133
    , 140 (1990), in which
    the Court held that ERISA preempted a state law that “ma[de]
    specific reference to, and indeed [wa]s premised on, the exis-
    tence of” an ERISA plan. In order for a party to bring a claim
    under the challenged law, “a plaintiff must plead, and the
    court must find, that an ERISA plan exists.” 
    Id.
     Here, by con-
    trast, the Ordinance can have its full force and effect even if
    no employer in the City has an ERISA plan. Covered employ-
    ers without ERISA plans can discharge their obligation under
    the Ordinance simply by making their required health care
    expenditures to the City.
    The second case is District of Columbia v. Greater Wash-
    ington Board of Trade (“Greater Washington”), 
    506 U.S. 125
    (1992). A local ordinance required employers to provide
    workers’ compensation benefits “measured by reference to
    ‘the existing health insurance coverage’ provided by the
    employer,” and required that the coverage “ ‘be at the same
    benefit level’ ” as the existing coverage. 
    Id. at 130
    . The Court
    held that the ordinance contained an impermissible “reference
    to” an ERISA plan because its requirement was measured by
    reference to the level of benefits provided by the employer’s
    ERISA plan.
    The district court in this case relied on the Court’s opinion
    in Greater Washington in holding that the Ordinance is pre-
    13944   GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    empted. The district court wrote, “By mandating employee
    health benefit structures and administration, [the Ordinance’s
    health care expenditure] requirements interfere with preserv-
    ing employer autonomy over whether and how to provide
    employee health coverage, and ensuring uniform national reg-
    ulation of such coverage.” Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n, 
    535 F. Supp. 2d at 975
    . Further, according to the district court, “The
    provisions [of the Ordinance] require private employers to
    meet a certain level of benefits; and those benefits are the type
    regularly provided by employer ERISA plans.” 
    Id. at 976
    . The
    district court concluded, “This Court finds that [the structure
    of the Ordinance] is akin to the statute the Supreme Court
    found preempted in District of Columbia v. Greater Washing-
    ton Board of Trade which required the employer to provide
    the same amount of health care coverage for workers eligible
    for workers compensation.” 
    Id. at 978
    .
    [17] There is a critical distinction between the ordinance in
    Greater Washington and the Ordinance in this case. Under the
    ordinance in Greater Washington, obligations were measured
    by reference to the level of benefits provided by the ERISA
    plan to the employee. Under the Ordinance in our case, by
    contrast, an employer’s obligations to the City are measured
    by reference to the payments provided by the employer to an
    ERISA plan or to another entity specified in the Ordinance,
    including the City. The employer calculates its required pay-
    ments based on the hours worked by its employees, rather
    than on the value or nature of the benefits available to ERISA
    plan participants. Thus, unlike the ordinance in Greater
    Washington, the Ordinance in this case is not determined, in
    the words of § 514(a), by “reference to” an ERISA plan.
    The Ordinance in this case is conceptually similar to a Cali-
    fornia prevailing wage statute challenged in WSB Electric,
    Inc. v. Curry, 
    88 F.3d 788
     (9th Cir. 1996). In that case, the
    California statute required an employer to pay the prevailing
    wage, consisting of a combination of cash and benefits. To
    calculate the total wage, the employer added the hourly cash
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.     13945
    wage to its hourly contribution to the employee’s benefit
    package. However, the statute required that a certain mini-
    mum amount be paid as a cash wage, a requirement which
    had the effect of putting a cap on the amount the employer
    could be credited for payments made to fund a benefit pack-
    age. The employer was free to contribute more than the cap
    amount to a benefit package, but any amount above the cap
    was not counted toward satisfaction of the prevailing wage
    requirement. 
    Id. at 790-91
    .
    [18] The plaintiffs in WSB Electric contended that the Cali-
    fornia statute was preempted by ERISA, pointing out that
    some of the employers were making payments to ERISA
    plans, and that benefits were paid out to the employees under
    these plans. 
    Id. at 792-93
    . We held, however, that the statute
    was not preempted. We wrote:
    At most, this scheme provides examples of the types
    of employer contributions to benefits that are
    included in the wage calculation. The scheme does
    not force employers to provide any particular
    employee benefits or plans, to alter their existing
    plans, or to even provide ERISA plans or employee
    benefits at all. These provisions are enforced regard-
    less of whether the individual employer provides
    benefits through ERISA plans, or whether the benefit
    contributions in a given locality are paid to ERISA
    plans.
    
    Id. at 793-94
     (citation and footnote omitted). Here, as in WSB
    Electric, employers need not have any ERISA plan at all; and
    if they do have such a plan, they need not make any changes
    to it. Where a law is fully functional even in the absence of
    a single ERISA plan, as it was in WSB Electric and as it is in
    this case, it does not make an impermissible reference to
    ERISA plans. Cf. Travelers Ins. Co., 
    514 U.S. at 656
     (“The
    surcharges are imposed upon patients and HMO’s, regardless
    of whether the commercial coverage or membership, respec-
    13946     GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    tively, is ultimately secured by an ERISA plan, private pur-
    chase, or otherwise, with the consequence that the surcharge
    statutes cannot be said to make ‘reference to’ ERISA plans in
    any manner.”).
    C.    Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder
    Finally, the Association contends that the Ordinance is pre-
    empted under the analysis set forth in Retail Industry Leaders
    Association v. Fielder, 
    475 F.3d 180
    , 183 (4th Cir. 2007). The
    Association contends that we will create a circuit split if we
    uphold the Ordinance. We disagree. We see no inconsistency
    between the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Fielder and our hold-
    ing in this case.
    We neither adopt nor reject the analysis of the Fourth Cir-
    cuit in Fielder. The panel majority in that case held a Mary-
    land law preempted over a forceful dissent. 
    Id. at 201-04
    (Michael, J., dissenting); see also Catherine L. Fisk &
    Michael M. Oswalt, Preemption and Civic Democracy in the
    Battle over Wal-Mart, 
    92 Minn. L. Rev. 1502
    , 1514-20
    (2008). For purposes of argument, however, we assume that
    the panel majority in Fielder was correct. But even under the
    reasoning of the panel majority, San Francisco’s Ordinance is
    valid.
    The Maryland law at issue in Fielder required “employers
    with 10,000 or more Maryland employees to spend at least
    8% of their total payrolls on employees’ health insurance
    costs or pay the amount their spending falls short to the State
    of Maryland.” Fielder, 
    475 F.3d at 183
     (majority opinion).
    The Maryland law gave nothing in return — either to an
    employer or its employees — for the employer’s payment to
    the State.
    Wal-Mart was the only employer in Maryland affected by
    the law’s minimum spending requirements. On the face of the
    law, Wal-Mart appeared to have two options. To reach the
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.     13947
    required spending level of 8%, it could either increase contri-
    butions to its own ERISA plan, or it could pay money to the
    State of Maryland. But the Fourth Circuit concluded that, in
    practical fact, Wal-Mart had no choice. The court wrote that
    Wal-Mart had “noted by way of affidavit [that] it would not
    pay the State a sum of money that it could instead spend on
    its employees’ healthcare.” 
    Id. at 193
    . The Fourth Circuit
    wrote in Fielder:
    This would be the decision of any reasonable
    employer. Healthcare benefits are a part of the total
    package of employee compensation an employer
    gives in consideration for an employee’s services.
    An employer would gain from increasing the com-
    pensation it offers employees through improved
    retention and performance of present employees and
    the ability to attract more and better new employees.
    In contrast, an employer would gain nothing in con-
    sideration of paying a greater sum of money to the
    State. Indeed, it might suffer from lower employee
    morale and increased public condemnation.
    In effect, the only rational choice employers have
    under the [Maryland law] is to structure their ERISA
    healthcare benefit plans so as to meet the minimum
    spending threshold.
    
    Id.
     The court wrote further: “[T]he amount that the [Maryland
    law] prescribes for payment to the State is actually a fee or a
    penalty that gives the employer an irresistible incentive to
    provide its employees with a greater level of health benefits.”
    
    Id. at 194
    . Therefore, the court concluded, “the choices given
    in the [Maryland law] . . . are not meaningful alternatives by
    which an employer can increase its healthcare spending to
    comply with the [law] without affecting its ERISA plans.” 
    Id. at 196
    .
    13948     GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.
    In stark contrast to the Maryland law in Fielder, the City-
    payment option under the San Francisco Ordinance offers
    employers a meaningful alternative that allows them to pre-
    serve the existing structure of their ERISA plans. If an
    employer elects to pay the City, that employer’s employees
    are eligible for free or discounted enrollment in the HAP, or
    for medical reimbursement accounts. In contrast to the Mary-
    land law, the San Francisco Ordinance provides tangible ben-
    efits to employees when their employers choose to pay the
    City rather than to establish or alter ERISA plans. In its
    motion for summary judgment, the Association provided no
    evidence to demonstrate that San Francisco employers are, in
    practical fact, compelled to alter or establish ERISA plans
    rather than to make payments to the City.5
    [19] Because the City-payment option offers San Francisco
    employers a realistic alternative to creating or altering ERISA
    plans, the Ordinance does not “effectively mandate[ ] that
    employers structure their employee healthcare plans to pro-
    vide a certain level of benefits.” See Fielder, 
    475 F.3d at 193
    .
    In the view of the Fielder court, Maryland legislators intended
    to “force Wal-Mart to increase its spending on healthcare ben-
    efits rather than to pay monies to the State.” 
    Id. at 185
    . Unlike
    the Maryland law, the San Francisco Ordinance provides
    employers with a legitimate alternative to establishing or
    altering ERISA plans. See Travelers Ins. Co., 
    514 U.S. at 664
    (stating that if the New York surcharges had been “an exorbi-
    tant tax,” they might leave ERISA plan purchasers “with a
    Hobson’s choice,” thereby amounting to an impermissible
    5
    We do not rely on the following to support our decision, but we note
    that San Francisco has reported that as of May 1, 2008, more than seven
    hundred San Francisco employers have elected to comply with the Ordi-
    nance by making their health care expenditures directly to the City. Office
    of the Mayor, City & County of S.F., Mayor Newsom Announces Hun-
    dreds of Employers Signing Up for Healthy San Francisco Program, May
    1, 2008, http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/files/PDF/HSF_Release_
    5.1.2008.pdf. This document indicates that 734 employers had elected to
    make payments to the City on behalf of 12,900 employees. 
    Id.
    GOLDEN GATE REST. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF S.F.    13949
    substantive mandate, but concluding that there was no evi-
    dence “that the surcharges are so prohibitive as to force all
    health insurance consumers to contract with the Blues”). We
    therefore conclude that the San Francisco Ordinance does not
    compel covered employers to establish or to alter ERISA
    plans. Cf. Fielder, 
    475 F.3d at 193
    .
    Conclusion
    [20] There may be better ways to provide health care than
    to require employers in the City of San Francisco to foot the
    bill. But our task is a narrow one, and it is beyond our prov-
    ince to evaluate the wisdom of the Ordinance now before us.
    We are asked only to decide whether § 514(a) of ERISA pre-
    empts the employer spending requirements of the Ordinance.
    We hold that it does not. The spending requirements do not
    establish an ERISA plan; nor do they have an impermissible
    connection with employers’ ERISA plans, or make an imper-
    missible reference to such plans.
    We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court
    and REMAND with instructions to enter summary judgment
    in favor of the City and Intervenors.