Maryland Law Review
Volume 67
Retail Industry Leaders Assn’n v. Fielder: ERISA Preemption Trumps the “Play or Pay” Law
In Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act (the Fair Share Act or the Act) was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Act impermissibly regulated employee benefit plans. By characterizing the Fair Share Act as an effective mandate that employers alter their employee benefit plans, the Fourth Circuit, although correct in its ultimate holding, avoided the tougher—but necessary— analysis to determine whether ERISA preempts a state or local law that gives employers the option to either increase employee benefit plan spending to meet a minimum threshold amount or pay a fee to the state. Although the Fair Share Act provides alternative methods of compliance, ERISA still preempts it because one of those methods requires an employer to alter its benefit plans to meet a state-specific requirement, and thus contravenes ERISA's goal of promoting the uniform administration of employee benefit programs nationwide.
Citation: Leslie A. Harrelson, Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder: ERISA Preemption Trumps The "Play or Pay" Law, 67 Md. L. Rev. 885 (2008).
More on the Maryland Law Review
- About
- Masthead
- Print Publications
- Endnotes
- Survey of Maryland and Fourth Circuit Law
- Submissions
- Subscriptions
- Prospective Members
