Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed

Nov 18, 201311:28 AMForward HR

with Diane Hamilton and Nilesh Patel

Obamacare ruling means corporations can practice religion and deny contraception coverage

(page 1 of 2)

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted an injunction against the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers must provide contraception care coverage to employees. In its remarkably expansive ruling, the court said business owners and their companies are persons entitled to religious freedom. Further, the court concluded the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened the owners and their companies’ religious freedom and granted a preliminary injunction barring the contraception mandate from taking effect while the case is litigated in the trial court.

Business owners raised religious objections

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) mandates that employee health care plans provide coverage for contraception and sterilization procedures. Two companies, run by Catholic families, objected to the mandate and claimed it interfered with their religious beliefs. The owners sued for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

RFRA prohibits the federal government from placing substantial burdens on a person’s exercise of religion, unless the government can demonstrate there is a compelling interest and that it has chosen the least restrictive means for furthering that compelling interest.

The companies argued that the mandate substantially burdened their ability to operate within Catholic guidelines and that they faced the choice of either violating their faith or being penalized for violating the mandate. If the companies did not comply with the mandate, they faced financial penalties of $100 per day per employee, totaling $36,500 per year per employee. For one of the companies, those penalties could have been as high as $17 million.

Can a private business exercise religion?

The major problem for the companies was that RFRA only covers “persons,” and there was no precedent that a for-profit company, not organized for a specific religious purpose, could claim RFRA protection as a person. The owners claimed the companies deserved coverage because they were operated in line with Catholic principles.

The 7th Circuit agreed and ruled that individuals and corporations are persons under RFRA and can exercise religious beliefs. In making its ruling, the court gave some startling insights about RFRA’s reach. First, RFRA is a sweeping super-statute that cuts across all other federal laws, regulations, and policies. Unless a future federal law exempts itself from RFRA, the law must bend and accommodate religious objections when there is a substantial burden not justified by a narrowly tailored compelling interest. Second, it does not matter if the religious objector is interpreting the religious tenets correctly. All that is required is a sincerely held belief that a law demands something in violation of the person’s religion.

The Supreme Court will likely have to settle the debate

The 7th Circuit is the third court of appeals to uphold a challenge to the contraception mandate. Two other courts of appeals have rejected the challenge. Due to this split between the federal appellate courts, the Supreme Court will likely have to decide whether the mandate is valid and whether religiously operated corporations should be able to claim RFRA rights.

According to the SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court will evaluate the existing cases on Nov. 26, and it may review the issue during the current term.

Implications for the workplace

Until the Supreme Court issues a decision, the 7th Circuit’s ruling is binding precedent for Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. That means employers in those states can potentially raise RFRA-based religious objections to federal laws, regulations, and policies. While the current case dealt with two Catholic-based corporations, the ruling provides rights to corporations operated under any religion.

Going forward, this case raises some challenging questions. If employers can object to forced benefits that might violate their religious beliefs, what other federal employment laws must give way? In addition, how are federal employment laws supposed to function when an objector from any religion can claim an RFRA violation?

(Continued)

Old to new | New to old
Nov 19, 2013 02:23 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

The last thing this country needs is the expansion of rights for the non-human at the expense of real people. I hope the Supreme Court knocks this one down but I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

On the other hand the web now gives us more options to be self employed providing we can get health care (and if that doesn't work under Obamacare we can do as some of my friends do- move just across Canada's border and operate in the American economy from there.

May 1, 2014 10:21 am
 Posted by  Anonymous

Non-human? Yes, please move to Canada immediately.

Add your comment:
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed
Edit Module

About This Blog

 Diane Hamilton, PCC, SPHR, is the owner and founder of Calibra, a coaching and consulting firm focused on maximizing leadership potential. Nilesh Patel is the principal attorney of the Mahadev Law Group, LLC, which focuses on human resources and employment law issues for organizations. He can be reached at npp@mahalawgroup.com. Both bloggers are members of Wisconsin SHRM, which is dedicated to being the state leader in HR management and the premier source for HR expertise and resources. More information can be found at www.wishrm.org. You can follow the WI SHRM blog at http://wishrm.wordpress.com.

Archives

Feed

Atom Feed Subscribe to the Forward HR Feed »

Recent Posts

Edit Module