:: Wal-Mart Wins: Fourth Circuit Rules That ERISA Preempts Maryland’s “Fair Share” Legislation
In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held today in Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, No. 06-1840 (January 17, 2007), that ERISA preempts Maryland’s Fair Share Health Care Fund Act. Because the Act forces employers to restructure their employee benefit plans, the Court opined, the Act conflicts with ERISA’s goal of permitting uniform nationwide administration of self-funded employee benefit plans. Judge William B. Traxler Jr. joined Niemeyer in his decision. Judge M. Blane Michael dissented. [Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 102157, C.A.4 (Md.)(January 17, 2007)]
For background information, see :: Fourth Circuit Hears Argument Over ERISA Preemption Of Maryland “Fair Share†Legislation
The reaction of the Retail Industry Leaders Association:
RILA Applauds the U.S. Court of Appeals Decision to Uphold Lower Court Ruling Striking Down Maryland Health Mandate – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today affirmed a district court decision to invalidate Maryland’s mandated health benefits law. To view a copy of the ruling, click here.
“Today’s Appeals Court decision makes clear that employer health plans are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local laws,†said RILA President Sandy Kennedy. “The Court’s decision sends a strong message that similar bills under consideration in other states and municipalities also violate federal law…” Click here to view RILA’s press release.
Reaction of Maryland Attorney General’s Office:
Christine Hansen, a spokeswoman for the Maryland attorney general’s office, said it was reviewing the ruling and had no comment. The state has 14 days to file a petition for a rehearing, she said.
Source: Washingon Post
Comments
One Response to “:: Wal-Mart Wins: Fourth Circuit Rules That ERISA Preempts Maryland’s “Fair Share” Legislation”
Roy:
Thanks for posting this case.
I understand that Wal-Mart self-funds its benefits. If that is true, wouldn’t this law be inapplicable to Wal-Mart, and all those employers in Maryland who self-fund their benefits?
Also, the case mentioned one of the purposes of the legislation was to lessen the Medicaid expenditures.
Why couldn’t a tax-exempt trust be set up in which businesses (say, those employers in the same line of business) contribute to in order to cover their uninsured employees?
Don Levit