Class Legislation/WalMart

[Mark Tushnet]

Isn't it relevant to the equal protection claim that the regulatory 
requirement *applies* to four employers, three of whom have, for their 
own reasons, already structured their systems so that they comply with 
the requirement?  Put another way, Wal-Mart now has to change its 
policy, and Giant Foods can't change the policy it now has.

DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:

> I can't think of a clearer example of "class legislation" than a law 
> designed to require WalMart, and only WalMart, to provide health 
> insurance to its workers.  A violation of equal protection?
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/business/13walmart.html?ei=5094&en=21d0fec926319b31&hp=&ex=1137214800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1137161264-w894X0JHQjyiDp4crAxhEw 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/business/13walmart.html?ei=5094&en=21d0fec926319b31&hp=&ex=1137214800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1137161264-w894X0JHQjyiDp4crAxhEw>
>  
> David E. Bernstein
> Visiting Professor
> University of Michigan School of Law
> Professor
> George Mason University School of Law
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060113/9fe24d63/attachment.html