1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 768 F.3d
  5. 768 F.3d 561 (2014)
 

SHERFEL v. NEWSON

No. 12-4285.

768 F.3d 561 (2014)

Joan SHERFEL, in her fiduciary capacity as a member of the Benefits Administrative Committee, Plan Administrator of the Nationwide-Sponsored Health and Welfare Employee Benefit Plans; Benefits Administrative Committee, Plan Administrator of the Nationwide-Sponsored Health and Welfare Employee Benefit Plans; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Reggie NEWSON, Secretary, Department of Workforce Development, State of Wisconsin, in his official capacity; Joseph Handrick, Administrator of the Equal Rights Division, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, in his official capacity; J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: September 30, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: Richard Briles Moriarty , Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin, for Appellants. Daniel W. Srsic , Littler Mendelson, P.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Richard Briles Moriarty , Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin, for Appellants. Daniel W. Srsic , Littler Mendelson, P.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. Sarah C. Crawford , National Partnership for Women & Families, Washington, D.C., Sherry Leiwant , A Better Balance: The Work and Family Legal Center, New York, New York, Jennifer A. Reisch , Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, California, Richard Saks , 9TO5 National Association Of Working Women, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Douglas A. Darch , Baker & Mckenzie LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curiae.

KETHLEDGE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COLE, C.J., joined, and STRANCH, J., joined in part. STRANCH, J. (pp. 571-80), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

OPINION

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge.

ERISA is a statute unique in its preemptive effect. The statute includes an express preemption clause — any state law that "relate[s] to any employee benefit plan" is preempted — which is so broadly worded that the Supreme Court has struggled to draw boundaries around its scope. The statute also preempts state law impliedly, through the doctrine of conflict preemption. That doctrine invalidates state laws to...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases