S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Human Rights Commission

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 8377·336 F.3d 1174·2003 WL 21739601·30 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2802·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6656
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 200302-16480California2,100 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goodwin, J.

S.D. Myers, Inc. again challenges San Francisco’s Nondiscrimination in Contracts Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), S.F. Admin. Code Ch. 12B, a measure that requires all city contractors to provide equal benefits to their employees, regardless of marital or domestic partner status. This is not the first time Myers has asked us to strike down the Ordinance. In S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461 (9th Cir.2001) (Myers I), we upheld the Ordinance as consistent with state law, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution. We once again uphold the Ordinance, this time against a challenge of preemption by California Family Code §§ 297-299.6 (the “Registration Statute”), a recently-enacted state statute that governs the creation and registration of domestic partnerships.

I. Background

Myers I details the relevant facts and we recite them only as necessary to understand the nature of this appeal. In 1997, Myers, an Ohio-based corporation, submitted the lowest bid to service electrical transformers owned by the City of San Francisco (the “City”) but located outside of city boundaries in Northern California. See Myers I, 253 F.3d at 465 . To secure the service…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.