U.S. airlines filed a lawsuit against San Francisco May 13, after the city/county attempted to enforce a first-of-its-kind ordinance requiring companies doing business with the local government to offer benefits to employees' domestic partners. The law goes into effect June 1.
The airlines say that federal law prohibits local governments from mandating employee benefits for national companies. "It would be impossible to operate if we had to contend with a patchwork quilt of [local] laws," said David Fuscus, Air Transport Association spokesman.
"It has nothing to do with sexual orientation or social issues," he said. The association represents 25 airlines.
The airlines are using as their argument three laws based on a principle that federal law pre-empts local ordinances - the Airline Deregulation Act, the Railway Labor Act and the Employee Income Security Act, according to Fuscus.
But San Francisco plans to the lawsuit, according to the local government's deputy attorney, Christiane Hayashi.
And there are penalties, Hayashi said. If a complaint is brought before San Francisco's Human Rights Commission by someone being discriminated against and the complaint is found to be valid, a $50 per-day (per person discriminated against within the company) fine will be levied against the company. In addition, the company's contract with San Francisco can be terminated and any future contracts are in jeopardy until the company complies.
The fracas started with United Airlines, which has a 25-year lease at the government-owned airport worth $13.4 million to San Francisco.
But the city/county was willing to give up the money from United's lease if it didn't comply. United agreed in February that in the next two years, it would make a "good-faith effort to comply" with the ordinance.
San Francisco passed the law last November.