Scholarship Information Current News:
Summary of Fall River REO Decision
A) US District Court Judge Zobel explicitly restated the UCANE challenged sections of both
the 4/2010 and the 9/2010 Fall River REOs (1. Journeymen residency requirement;
2. foremen residency requirement; 3. apprenticeship residency requirement; 4-6.
mandatory group health, pension and apprenticeship requirements; 7. compliance
certification; 8. reporting requirements and 9. noncompliance penalties.);
B) Court very briefly summarized the numerous UCANE federal and state legal arguments
supporting UCANE’s position that the challenged REOs sections were unlawful;
C) Court rejected the Fall River argument case was mooted by repeal of the 4/10 Ordinance;
D) Court rejected Fall River argument UCANE, Walsh and its employee did not have
standing to bring a challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US
Constitution;
E) Court found the residency requirements (1, 2, 3, above; journeymen, apprentices and
foremen), were a violation of the federal Privileges and Immunities Clause because the
REO acted to discriminate against out of state residents and was not justified by any facts
argued by Fall River;
F) Court found UCANE had standing to raise the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) preemption claims;
G) Court found the mandatory group health, pension, and apprenticeship requirements (4-6,
above) were unlawful because they violated the preemption section (federal law
supersedes state law section) of ERISA;
H) Court rejected Fall River argument the federal apprenticeship law, Fitzgerald Act, saves
the REO apprenticeship requirement from preemption;
I) Court rejected Fall River argument that Fall River was acting as a “Market Participant”
and, therefore, was not subject to the ERISA preemption rules;
J) Court fund all challenged provisions of the Fall River REOs unlawful, including, required
certification, reporting, and penalty sections as applied to the challenged provisions;
K) Court held any like provisions would likewise be held unlawful should Fall River attempt
to circumvent this Court’s rulings of law;
L) Court directed the parties’ to agree upn a Judgment to be entred by the Court within 20
days (Draft Judgment has been approved);
M) The parties are negotiating UCANE’s attorneys’ fees.
The time for taking an appeal does not run until a Final Judgment enters. Until and unless the
decision is stayed pending appeal, which is improbable since Fall River on three (3) separate
occasions voluntarily agreed to not enforce the challenged sections of its REOs or the case is
reversed on appeal, Fall River is prohibited from enacting and enforcing any like restrictions on
public bidding.
Tel: (617) 471-9955 • Fax: (617) 471-8939 • 300 Congress Street, Suite 101 • Quincy, MA 02169