Skip navigation
sponsored by 

Judge overturns Wal-Mart health care law

Maryland adopts bill as way to reign in ballooning Medicaid costs

  LIVE QUOTE
Data: MSN Money and IDC Comstock delayed 20 min.
Video: Life  
In living color: 'Forgotten war' photos unearthed
  July 25: As a war correspondent in the early years of television, NBC's John Rich showed images of the Korean war to the world. In this week's Making A Difference series, Rich shares the pictures again — this time, in color. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.

  Stand and be counted
Gut Check America

What keeps you up at night? Gut Check America wants you to tell us what really matters to our country. Click here to learn more and get involved.

  Photo features  
  More
Image: Youth summer camp
AFP - Getty Images
  The Week in Pictures
A gaggle of geese, Russians in training and a refreshing California moment highlight a week of images.
image: Fish give a pedicure
AP
PhotoBlog
View and discuss the pictures and issues that caught our eyes.
updated 2:50 p.m. ET July 19, 2006

BALTIMORE - A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant “faces threatened injury” from the law’s spending requirement.

The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”

Story continues below ↓
advertisement

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, of which Wal-Mart is a member, filed the lawsuit contesting the legislation. The group contended the law unfairly targeted the world’s largest retailer.

Without the court’s intervention, the law would have taken effect in January.

Lawyers for the state argued before Motz that the so-called Wal-Mart law wasn’t an illegal mandate. They said Wal-Mart was free to pay the penalty — estimated at $6 million a year — instead of providing better benefits. As another alternative, the retailer could also have set up health clinics for its employees.

Other states have considered bills similar to Maryland’s law, although no other state has adopted one.

In Maryland, where state budget writers were looking for ways to rein in a $4.6 billion annual Medicaid tab, the Wal-Mart law was seen as a way to encourage companies to keep employees off public rolls. It became law last winter when the Democratic legislature overrode a 2005 veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sponsored links

Resource guide

Get Your 2008 Credit Score

Search Jobs

Find your next car

Find Your Dream Home

Find a business to start

$7 trades, no fee IRAs