Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion for somewhat different reasons in Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. (Cal. 1994)). There, Employee Staffing Services, Inc. sponsored an ERISA plan which covered work related injuries and provided medical, health and life insurance benefits.
The scheme does not force employers to provide any particular employee benefits or plans, to alter their existing plans, or to even provide ERISA plans or employee benefits at all. See Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038, (9th Cir. 1994) ("In the case at bar, unlike Greater Washington, the state law does not tell employers how to write their ERISA plans."). These provisions are enforced regardless of whether the individual employer provides benefits through ERISA plans, or whether the benefit contributions in a given locality are paid to ERISA plans.
In doing so, we join the growing ranks of our sister circuits that have recently addressed the issue. E.g., Contract Services Employee Trust v. Davis, 55 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 1995) (concluding that Oklahoma's workers compensation regime, as it relates to temporary workers' benefits, was not preempted by ERISA); Combined Management, Inc. v. Superintendent of Bur. of Ins., 22 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) (same); Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994) (same). In order to resolve this case, we must take a close look at the language of ERISA's preemption provision, Section(s) 514(a).
Id. Plaintiffs cite the cases of Barker v. Pick N Pull Auto Dismantlers, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 889 (E.D.Cal. 1993) and Employee Staffing Services v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (1994), for the proposition that the State of Nevada may seek penalties and injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants because their plan does not comply with the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act. Both Barker and Aubry dealt with the California workers' compensation requirements, which are similar to Nevada's Industrial Insurance Act.
While specifically directed to regulation of disability benefits, Shaw applies with equal force in the case of workmen's compensation benefits. Employee Staffing Servs. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 1994). Five circuits, including ours, have expressly held that ERISA does not preempt state laws regulating workmen's compensation, because these laws do not "relate to" benefit plans.
We are the fifth federal court of appeals to address similar state statutes vis-a-vis ERISA preemption. See Employers Resource Management Co., Inc. v. James, 62 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 1995); Contact Services Employee Trust v. Davis, 55 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 1995); Combined Mgt. v. Superintendent of Bur. of Ins., 22 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 350 (1994); Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994). So far, Fuller and his counterparts are zero for four.
Id. at 7. Hence, the court concluded that Maine's law did not "relate to" an ERISA plan and therefore was not preempted. In Employee Staffing Services v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of a district court and held that ERISA did not preempt California's workers' compensation plan even though the employer in that case provided coverage for work-related injuries as part of a multi-benefit ERISA plan. In Aubry, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion.
As Maine's workers' compensation law falls within this special exemption, we affirm the district court's determination that ERISA does not preempt any efforts by the Superintendent to require CMI to provide workers' compensation benefits through an authorized insurance provider or qualified self-insurance. See Employee Staffing Servs., Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that California's workers' compensation law, which is quite similar to Maine's, is not preempted by ERISA). Section 4(b)(3) provides that ERISA shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if:
Again, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an industrial injury per se. In his petition for reconsideration, applicant also contends that there is no preemption, because ERISA does not permit an employer to avoid its liability under a state's workers' compensation laws, citing Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry (9th Cir. 1994) 20 F.3d 1038 and other cases. It is true that, based on uniform federal interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(3), an employer may not escape a state's workers' compensation laws by establishing a multibenefit ERISA plan which, among other things, would provide disability benefits and medical treatment for industrial injuries in accordance with the terms of the ERISA plan, rather than in accordance with state law.
Unlike the D.C. law in Greater Washington , CalSavers "does not tell employers how to write their ERISA plans." WSB Elec., Inc. , 88 F.3d at 793–94 (quoting Employee Staffing Servs., Inc. v. Aubry , 20 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 1994) ). Moreover, while the D.C. law "impose[d] requirements by reference" to ERISA-covered plans, Greater Washington , 506 U.S. at 130–31, 113 S.Ct. 580, CalSavers ensures that employers with ERISA plans are not subject to additional requirements.