Pa. Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Pittsburgh, 211 A.3d 810

Background

In 2015 Pittsburgh enacted two ordinances: the Paid Sick Days Act (PSDA) requiring paid sick leave accrual for employees, and the Safe and Secure Buildings Act (SSBA) imposing extensive training/education and certification requirements on security and building service employees at large or city properties.
Plaintiffs (business groups) challenged both ordinances under the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law (HRC), §2962(f) (the "Business Exclusion"), which bars home-rule municipalities from determining duties of businesses and employers "except as expressly provided by statutes" applicable statewide or to classes of municipalities.
Trial court held both ordinances ultra vires under §2962(f); Commonwealth Court affirmed. Pittsburgh and SEIU appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The City relied primarily on the Disease Prevention and Control Law (DPCL), the Emergency Management Services Code, the Second Class City Code (SCCC), and HRC provisions as "express" statutory authority to trigger the exception.
The Supreme Court framed the narrow question as whether any statewide or class-applicable statute "expressly" authorized the City to impose the PSDA and SSBA burdens; it applied de novo statutory construction, resolving ambiguities in favor of home-rule authority.
Holding: PSDA is valid under the DPCL exception to §2962(f); SSBA is not a valid exercise because no cited statute expressly authorized its extensive private-employer training mandates.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PSDA is barred by HRC §2962(f) absent "express" statutory authorization	PSDA is a business/employment regulation barred by §2962(f); no statute "expressly" authorizes municipalities to require paid sick leave	DPCL allows municipalities (including those served by county health depts.) to enact ordinances "relating to disease prevention and control," which covers PSDA	PSDA upheld: DPCL construed to include municipalities served by county health departments and to sufficiently and expressly authorize health measures that may burden business
Whether the SSBA is barred by HRC §2962(f) absent "express" statutory authorization	SSBA imposes affirmative duties on employers; challengers say no statute expressly empowers such private-employer training mandates	City relies on Emergency Management Code, SCCC fire/health provisions, and HRC §2962(c)(4) as authority to require private training and coordination	SSBA invalid: no cited statute "expressly" authorizes these broad, continuing training/certification obligations on private employers
Whether a home-rule city may invoke provisions of municipal codes (e.g., SCCC) under the Business Exclusion after adopting home rule	City lost second-class code status; thus SCCC cannot be invoked to authorize local burdens	The Business Exclusion expressly incorporates statutes "applicable to all municipalities or to a class or classes of municipalities," so a home-rule city may rely on such statutes for the exception	City may rely on statutes applicable to classes of municipalities when asserting the §2962(f) exception; refusing to do so would create surplusage or absurd results
What "express" means in the §2962(f) exception—must authorization be narrowly specific to the precise business burden imposed?	Plaintiffs urge a narrow reading: "express" requires explicit statutory authorization for the particular burden on employers	City urges a broader reading: "express" permits statutes authorizing local health/safety regulation generally, recognizing incidental business burdens	Court adopts middle ground: express authorization need not spell out every incidental burden; DPCL's grant to regulate disease prevention is sufficiently "express" for PSDA but not broad enough to reach SSBA's private-employer mandates

Key Cases Cited

Denbow v. Borough of Leetsdale, 729 A.2d 1113 (Pa.) (municipal corporations historically creatures of the state under Dillon's Rule)
City of Phila. v. Schweiker, 858 A.2d 75 (Pa.) (home-rule cities may legislate without express statutory warrant unless limited by constitution, statute, or charter)
Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass'n of Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh, 985 A.2d 711 (Pa.) (invalidating a city ordinance that imposed affirmative employment/contracting duties under §2962(f))
SEPTA v. City of Phila., 101 A.3d 79 (Pa.) (presumption of validity for home-rule exercises of legislative power absent specific statutory limitation)
Nat'l Wood Preservers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Env't Res., 414 A.2d 37 (Pa.) (broad description of state police power to protect health and welfare)
Commonwealth v. Beam, 788 A.2d 357 (Pa.) (discussion of "clear and unmistakable" delegation in administrative context informing standards for express grants)