Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Maryland General Assembly enacted the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, which requires employers with 10,000 or more Maryland employees to spend at least 8% of their total payrolls on employees' health insurance costs or pay the amount their spending falls short to the State of Maryland. The Act's minimum spending provision was crafted to cover just Wal-Mart. The General Assembly perceived that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a particularly large employer, provided its employees with a substandard level of healthcare benefits, forcing many Wal-Mart employees to depend on state-subsidized healthcare programs. Some states claim many Wal-Mart employees end up on public health programs such as Medicaid. A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's children's health insurance program (CHIP) at a cost of nearly $ 10 million annually. Similarly, a North Carolina hospital found that 31% of 1,900 patients who said they were Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in Medicaid, and an additional 16% were uninsured. The record discloses that only four employers have at least 10,000 employees in Maryland. Wal-Mart was the only one in violation of the Act’s minimum spending requirements. Wal-Mart is a member of P. P commenced this action against D to declare the Act preempted by ERISA and to enjoin D from enforcing it. P filed a motion for summary judgment on its ERISA-preemption claim. The court concluded that ERISA preempted the Fair Share Act because the Act effectively mandated that employers spend a minimum amount on healthcare benefit plans. The court found that the Fair Share Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the Act's classifications were not irrational. Both parties appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.