Crossposted from Progressive States 

The federal court decision overturning Maryland's Fair Share Health Care law, is no doubt a setback for Maryland advocates seeking to hold irresponsible employers like Wal-Mart accountable for providing health care to their employees, but advocates should not see this one court decision as definitive for a number of reasons.

The Fair Share law had required large employers such as Wal-Mart to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health care for employees or pay the equivalent in fees to the state.  The judge in his decision argued that the federal ERISA (Employment Retirement Security Act) law preempted the Maryland law, but that in no way means that the overall national movement to hold employers responsible for health care costs is undermined: 

• First, there is good reason to believe the district court's decision may be overturned on appeal based on the judge misconstruing the language of the statute; the Maryland state attorney general already plans to appeal.
• Second, the Maryland law had particular language that the judge criticized as violating the ERISA law.  The judge in his opinion went out of his way to say his decision applied only to the Maryland law: "I am expressing no opinion on whether legislative approaches taken by other States to the problems of health care delivery and its attendant costs would be preempted by ERISA."  Other laws involving employer provided health care are therefore unaffected by the decision.
• Third, it is worth emphasizing that appeals courts have already held that prevailing wage laws -- which mandate that employers on public construction projects provide benefits such as health care to their employees-- are valid under ERISA.(See decisions here and here). So proposals like the Chicago "big box" ordinance to require a combo of wage and benefits for large retail workers, modeled on prevailing wage laws, are even more clearly untouched by yesterday's decision.
• Finally, even the Maryland court discounted arguments by the plaintiffs that it's unconstutional for laws to regulate just certain employers, or even one employer such as Wal-Mart. As other courts have held as well, it is perfectly reasonable to select particular large employers for different regulations from smaller firms.

Added:  The key message here is that despite any victory dance by Wal-Mart over this particular decision, it shouldn't be used by the media or others as some kind of defeat for the overall policy program of making sure employers keep paying their fair share of health care costs.

There is a basic reality that given the percentage of health care paid for by employers right now, it is nearly inconceviable that general tax revenues can make up the shortfall if good employers are forced to bail on health care coverage due to competition by the Wal-Marts of the world.  So either the states (or the feds ideally) create a level playing field through stabilizing employer contributions to employee-health care or the short-term results are going to be massive cuts in health care coverage or serious increases in out-of-pocket costs for working families -- both of which are moving forward rapidly.