Score one for Wal-Mart. The retail giant, heavily criticized for its poor treatment of its workforce, won the latest round in its battle against the Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act with an opinion from the 4th Circuit upholding the district court’s ruling that the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted the state act (e.g., prohibited further state regulation of the same subject matter).

The history of this lawsuit makes for interesting reading. It’s a case of a state government stepping up to the plate to put the reins on what many see as an out-of-control employer. (Or it’s a case of a state government interfering in matters they had no business messing with, one more example of local antagonism towards the virtuous big-box retailers who save local economies. Depends on your perspective.)

I agree with Professor Paul Secunda at the WorkPlace Law Prof Blog who stated in his post about this ruling yesterday that while the analysis under ERISA law was predictable, as a policy matter the law should be amended to allow states some flexibility in this issue. Health care financing is a growing issue in the U.S., and a major contributor to bankruptcy filings. (See this post at my other blog, SC Bankruptcy & Consumer Law Blog, about that very issue.)

Other Resources:

• Case Opinion - Retail Industry Leaders Assoc. v. Fielders (PDF format)
• New York Times article about the ruling
• Ross’s Employment Law Blog post