Wal Mart 2, States 0: Suffolk County, NY Fair Share Act Shot Down.
Well, the bug-juice seems to be leaking onto New York. It’s first Fair Share attempt just got shot down, apparently using the same arguments the Retail Industy Leaders of America used to win in Maryland earlier this year.
Roy Harmon explains what happened over at HealthPlanLaw.com.
The big deal now, according to Paul Secunda at Workplace Prof Blog, is what happens to the Massachusets universal healthcare plan. According to Secunda:
I am now more interested to see if the Massachusetts universal health care plan suffers the same fate. The best thing going for that law is that apparently RILA doesn’t believe it causes the same harm to its members as the Maryland and Suffolk County law and has not yet challenged it on ERISA preemtion grounds.
If the only difference between the Fair Share Acts and the Massachusetts UHC plan is that RILA hasn’t bit yet, then we’re in for a serious fight. RILA’s press release doesn’t make it sound like they’re too afraid to go again. The Fair Share provisions are definitely a big piece of the Massachusetts puzzle. And with other states like California possibly signing onto the Massachusetts mantra, this could get real interesting real fast.
Harmon agrees, focusing on what these decisions mean for any law trying to tax an employer for healthcare coverage under the RILA rulings’ interpretation of ERISA preemption:
The idea appears to be that, so long as the tax is not imposed on ERISA plans and does not explicitly suggest a connection with such plans, some form of “pay or play” regime may be imposed on employers as a part of healthcare financing. After Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, — F.3d —-, 2007 WL 102157, C.A.4 (Md.) January 17, 2007), however, these proposals deserve careful reconsideration.
While [previous decisions] give good reason to believe that lawmakers may impose surcharges on patients or providers, the Fourth Circuit opinion in the RILA decision … poses a substantial risk to any notion that States may look to employers to supply healthcare financing for State healthcare programs. To the extent [the Court] abandons “literal textualism” and looks to the Congressional purpose of ERISA’s enactment, little can be gleaned that would suggest that ERISA will peacefully co-exist with a multiplicity of State-based employer tax regimes dedicated to the funding of multiple State healthcare programs.
- Another Fair Share Law Bites ERISA Preemption Dust
Tweets
- #NATO paranoia = best commute ever! 15 mins home to downtown! Thanks shadowy anarchist crazies! | 1 hour ago
- RT @Labor_Law: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Starbucks’ “One Union Button” Policy bit.ly/Kd3F48 #HR | 12 hours ago
- RT @jonhyman: New post: 6s wild! 6th Circuit affirms contractual 6 month limitation for employment claims goo.gl/fb/HNFB2 | 1 day ago
Recent Posts
Blogs I Read
- Connecticut Employment Law Blog
- Delaware Employment Law Blog
- Employer Law Report
- FMLA Insights
- Lawffice Space
- Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog
- Noncompete & Trade Secrets Blog
- Ohio Employer's Law Blog
- Ross Runkel's LawMemo
- The Employer Handbook
- The Proactive Employer by Stephanie Thomas
- Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog






