Chamber of commerce and others brought action against city for declaratory relief and temporary injunction against enforcement of city ordinance that required employers to provide employees with sick and safe leave.
The District Court granted partial temporary injunctive relief, enjoining city from enforcing ordinance against employers located outside city boundaries. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. City amended ordinance to require leave time accrual only for work performed within city boundaries and use of leave time only when employee was scheduled to work within city boundaries. City and chamber both moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted chamber’s motion in part, enjoining enforcement as applied to any employer residing outside city boundaries, but denying motion as to chamber’s claim that ordinance was preempted by state law. City appealed and chamber cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated permanent injunction. Chamber’s petition for review was granted.
The Supreme Court held that:
- There was no irreconcilable conflict between the ordinance and state sick-leave statute, and so ordinance was not preempted by conflict with statute;
- State law did not occupy the field of employer-provided sick and safe time and so did not preempt local regulation; and
- The ordinance did not violate the extraterritoriality doctrine.