## Facts

- Theresa Ciampi was employed by Hannaford Bros. Co. and suffered a work-related injury on January 30, 1993.
- During her disability, Hannaford discontinued certain fringe benefits provided as part of her employment.
- Ciampi sought workers’ compensation benefits calculated by including the value of the discontinued fringe benefits (about $62.50–$63.50 per week) in her “average weekly wage” under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(H).
- The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits including the fringe-benefit value, subject to the statutory cap tied to the state average weekly wage.
- Hannaford challenged the award, arguing § 102(4)(H) was preempted by ERISA’s broad preemption clause.
- The Board declined to decide ERISA preemption, and Hannaford sought appellate review in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court).

## Issues

1. Whether 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(H), requiring inclusion of certain fringe benefits in average weekly wage calculations for workers’ compensation, is preempted by ERISA because it “relates to” an employee benefit plan.
2. Whether the statute has an impermissible “reference to” or “connection with” ERISA plans by increasing costs, creating administrative burdens, or generating conflicting regulation.

## Decision

- The Law Court held that 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(H) is not preempted by ERISA.
- The court concluded the statute neither refers to ERISA plans nor has a sufficient connection with plan administration or structure to trigger ERISA preemption.
- The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s award including the fringe-benefit value in Ciampi’s average weekly wage, subject to the statutory cap.

## Legal Principles

- ERISA preempts state laws that “relate to” employee benefit plans, assessed principally by whether the state law makes a “reference to” or has a substantial “connection with” such plans.
- A state law does not make a disqualifying “reference to” ERISA plans where it does not act immediately and exclusively on ERISA plans and can operate regardless of whether an ERISA plan exists.
- Indirect economic or administrative effects on employers or benefit plans, without regulation of plan structure or administration, are generally insufficient for ERISA preemption.
- State workers’ compensation wage-replacement rules may use the value of fringe benefits as an input to calculate state benefits without thereby regulating ERISA plan terms, funding, fiduciary duties, reporting, disclosure, or enforcement.

## Conclusion

Maine’s inclusion of discontinued fringe benefits in workers’ compensation average weekly wage calculations was treated as a wage-replacement measure within traditional state authority and not as regulation of ERISA plan administration, so ERISA did not preempt the statute and the employee’s award was affirmed.


Ciampi v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 681 A.2d 4 (Me. 1996)