TITLE

Health Law Aimed at Wal-Mart Overturned

AUTHOR(S)
Ellis, Kristi
PUB. DATE
July 2006
SOURCE
WWD: Women's Wear Daily;7/20/2006, Vol. 192 Issue 12, p3
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article reports on the ruling by a federal court judge in Maryland on a case filed by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which aims to overturn the state's health care benefit law. U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz overturned the Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to increase spending for employee health care. The Maryland law would have required all employers with 10,000 or more employees -- only Wal-Mart -- to spend as much as 8 percent of their total wages paid on employee health benefits.
ACCESSION #
21781484

 

Related Articles

  • Maryland's Wal-Mart law dealt further blow as appeals court rules ERISA violation. Geisel, Jerry // Business Insurance;1/22/2007, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p22 

    This article reports that a federal appeals court has decided to upheld a lower court ruling striking down a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employees' health insurance. Because of the way the measure was written, the law would have applied only to...

  • States are asking: Who is responsible for health care? Gresham, Lynn // Employee Benefit News;5/1/2005, Vol. 19 Issue 6, p9 

    Discusses the efforts of U.S. states in addressing problems concerning health care coverage of employees, as of May 2005. Plans of legislators in Maryland for the enactment of a law that would levy tax on large companies that do not provide a mandatory level of health care benefits; Response of...

  • Court Rules Against Wal-Mart in Suit.  // SN: Supermarket News;11/7/2005, Vol. 53 Issue 45, p6 

    The article reports on the lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. against its former vice chairman Tom Coughlin. A Bentonville, Arkansas-based court ruled that the company cannot sue Coughlin over his alleged misuse of company funds because he signed an agreement with the firm that prohibits...

  • RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LAW. Rose, Jonathan G.; Durnwald, Michael R. // Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal;Spring2008, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p333 

    The article surveys recent developments in employee benefits law during the latter half of 2006 and earlier half of 2007. The first portion of this article reviews important judicial developments involving employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. It...

  • FOCUS ON DISCLOSURE AND MISREPRESENTATION. Hesse, Katherine A.; Ehrens, Doris R. MacKenzie // Benefits Quarterly;1998 Second Quarter, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p86 

    This section provides an update on several court rulings concerning various employee benefits-related cases in the U.S. as of June 1998. In Jane Doe v. Travelers Insurance Co., decisions of out-of-court decision makers with discretionary authority are reviewed using an arbitrary and capricious...

  • Healthy Steps: The Working Families Party and Wal-Mart. Green, Jon; Mason, J. W. // Social Policy;Fall2005, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p41 

    The article focuses on the approach used by the Working Families Party in getting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to provide health benefits to its employees. It discusses how the employment practices of Wal-Mart affect the plight of low-wage workers in the entire U.S. economy. It presents a history of the...

  • Pa. jury orders Wal-Mart to pay $78M to employees. Dale, Maryclaire // Buffalo Law Journal;10/19/2006, Vol. 78 Issue 84, p16 

    The article reports on the ruling by a Pennsylvania court on a class-action lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. by its former and current employees. The retailer was found to have violated the state's labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock. It was...

  • Plaintiff's Claim for Benefits Barred by Five-Year Statute of Limitations.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Feb2008, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p3 

    The article reports on the findings of the U.S. District Court in Kentucky that a five-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiff's claim and had tolled at the time the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. The court said the plaintiff had been informed that she was not given benefits after her...

  • Court Sides With Biz on Disability. Gossage, Bobbie // Inc.;Aug2003, Vol. 25 Issue 8, p26 

    Focuses on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case involving Black & Decker Corp. and its former employee Kenneth Nord, which stated that businesses can reject employee disability benefits when their doctor disagrees with the treating physician. Claim stated by the physicians of Nord on his...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics