Rhode Island Hospitality Ass'n v. City of Providence Ex Rel. Lombardi
775 F. Supp. 2d 416
D.R.I.2011Background
- Rhode Island Hospitality Association and two Delaware real estate LLCs (Hilton Providence and The Westin Providence) challenge Providence's October 21, 2010 Hospitality Business Protection and Worker Retention Ordinance.
- First Ordinance (Oct. 15, 2009) covered certain city facilities and required six-month retention, wage, seniority and hiring-list rules; amended version narrowed scope and removed certain provisions.
- Ordinance retroactively effective to Oct. 26, 2009 for covered entities and to date of amendments for others; creates three-month post-change retention period with ability to discharge for just cause.
- Plaintiffs allege NLRA preemption, Contract Clause violation, Equal Protection violation, and Home Rule Charter exceedance; amicus briefs filed by unions and others.
- Court held case ripe for merits on agreed statement of facts; two hearings held; relief sought is declaratory judgment and injunction against enforcement.
- Key entities affected include The Westin, Hilton, Providence Renaissance, and other Providence hotels with 25+ rooms; RICC and VMA largely exempted in amended ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NLRA preemption of the Ordinance | Preempted under Machinists and Garmon principles due to impacts on bargaining. | Not a true labor regulation; similar to other minimum labor standards not preempted. | Ordinance not preempted; not a core bargained regulation. |
| Effect on successor-employer bargaining obligations | Retention periods bind successor to terms or bargaining with union. | Retention is temporary, does not bind initial terms or require immediate bargaining; Burns framework applies only if permanency or offers occur. | Not a Burns-style mandatory bargaining obligation at start; only potential if retention extends beyond 90 days or permanency is signaled. |
| Contract Clause impairment | Three-month retention and just-cause constraints impair preexisting contracts. | Police-power health of tourism; regulation is permissible even if affecting contracts. | Not a substantial impairment; temporary retention with independent terms does not substantially impair contracts. |
| Equal Protection | Arbitrary, targeted at specific hotels; harms competition. | Rational basis with legitimate tourism promotion objective; classifications need only conceivable rational relation. | Rational basis upheld; no equal protection violation found. |
| Home Rule Charter authority | Ordinance intrudes on statewide tourism regulation; exceeds local authority. | Tourism local impact and local police powers justify regulation; statewide concern not controlling here. | Ordinance within Providence Home Rule authority; not preempted by statewide concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Burns Int'l Security Serv., Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1972) (successor retains bargaining rights; initial terms may differ)
- Lodge 76, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Wisconsin Em't Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1976) (Machinists preemption: field left to free play of economic forces)
- Garmon, San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1959) (Garmon preemption: NLRA-protected activity cannot be regulated by state)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1985) (Metropolitan Life: preemption limits in public employee protections; not all minimum benefits speech)
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (onetime severance payments; true minimum labor standards)
- Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1987) (successor obligations and bargaining continuity)
- Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Hotel and Restaurant Emps., 417 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1974) (new employer's right to operate with its own labor force)