Number of states mandating insurance horny wives dating sites

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in a 2-1 decision, agreeing that the Act is preempted by ERISA because it mandates the structure of health benefit plans by requiring employers to fund their plans in accordance with a predetermined formula and to meet a minimum spending threshold.

In this regard, the Circuit Court agreed with RILA's arguments that the option under the Act for employers to pay money to the State to fund non-ERISA healthcare options was not a real alternative because no reasonable employer would pay money to the state if it could spend it on benefits for its own employees.

This is exactly the type of patchwork system that ERISA preemption was designed to avoid.

The Fourth Circuit also held that the Act, and similar laws in other jurisdictions, interfere with ERISA's goal of uniform national plan administration because they can expose large national employers to differing state and local laws concerning plan funding.

The Act (popularly known as the "Wal-Mart law") is one of the first, recently enacted, state laws of its kind to be challenged by an employer group on ERISA preemption grounds.

A number of other states and municipalities have enacted or have sought to enact similar laws.

The term "grocery employer" is broadly defined to include entities primarily selling food for off-site consumption with 50 or more employees and those warehouse clubs and other entities which have 12,500 square feet of active retail space for the sale of food, with certain exceptions for pharmacies.

and also requires employers to calculate the number of hours worked for each covered employee between the July 1 to June 30 fiscal year, calculate the amount expended in healthcare benefits during that time and determine whether the minimum level is met, based upon a "prevailing healthcare expenditure" calculated yearly.

Leave a Reply