Tag: birth control

SCOTUS Favors Employers’ Religious Liberties Over Employee Rights

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued two important decisions this week in cases reflecting the ongoing legal tensions between employers’ religious liberties and the right of employees to be free from discrimination; and in both cases, SCOTUS tipped the scales decidedly in favor of employers’ religious liberties.

First Amendment Supersedes Employment Discrimination Claims

The Supreme Court issued a decision in two similar cases – essentially dismissing the discrimination claims brought by two Catholic school teachers who were discharged from their instructional positions at two different Catholic schools in southern California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (19-267), and St. James School v. Biel (19-348), the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 majority that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Religion Clauses foreclose the teachers’ employment discrimination claims. In the OLG case, the former teacher sued for age discrimination; in the St. James case, the teacher was dismissed after she sought a leave of absence for cancer treatment. The teacher later passed away.

Relying on the “ministerial exception” outlined in the 2012 SCOTUS decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), the majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that “religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent, criticizes the majority for its distillation of the Hosanna-Tabor standard into “a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role,” and observes that it “strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.”

Religious Exemptions From Birth Control Mandate Under the Affordable Care Act

In a similar but procedurally more complicated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s expansion of a federal rule that exempts employers with religious or moral objections from being required to provide employees with health insurance coverage for birth control under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a 7-2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (19-431), SCOTUS tackled the latest skirmish of the ACA’s birth-control mandate. The ACA mandate generally requires employers to provide female employees health insurance with access to contraception. Religious entities have repeatedly challenged the rules, as well as the opt-out accommodation process developed under the Obama administration for employers with religious or moral exemptions.  (The Trump administration had expanded those exemptions.)

With the majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS held that the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had authority to issue rules for employers. In a concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) acknowledges the statutory authority of the federal agencies, but cautions, “that does not mean the Departments should prevail when these cases return to the lower courts. The States challenged the exemptions not only as outside the HRSA’s [Health Resources and Services Administration’s] statutory authority, but also as ‘arbitrary [and] capricious.’”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) notes, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”

Takeaways for Discerning Employers

While these Supreme Court decisions, in tandem, may bolster employers’ confidence in their sincerely held beliefs and moral objections about certain employment-related decisions, it is also important to recognize its limitations.  Employers should strategize with their leadership and legal counsel to carefully weigh whether and to what extent these decisions should (or will) inform their own policies and practices, as well as any resulting reputational impact and workplace morale considerations.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more recent SCOTUS employment decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Third Circuit Upholds Decision Blocking Trump Administration’s Birth Control Rules

OVERVIEW

A Third Circuit appeals panel upheld the lower court ruling in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America et al. No. 17-3752. This ruling grants a nationwide preliminary injunction against the religious and moral exemptions for employers to the ACA’s birth control mandate, so employers may want to take a cautious approach toward limiting contraceptive coverage.

IN DEPTH

A Third Circuit appeals panel upheld the lower court ruling in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America et al. No. 17-3752, a ruling granting a nationwide preliminary injunction against the religious and moral exemptions for employers to the ACA’s birth control mandate. The decision was passed down in January by a Pennsylvania federal judge, and follows a sequence of similar appeals cases brought in the Ninth Circuit.

In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, the panel found that the plaintiffs had proved particularized injury—rejecting the Trump Administration’s argument that the states lacked standing. The panel found there was evidence in the record showing the exemptions would result in increased spending of state-funded services either from women who have lost coverage or states bearing the costs of unintended pregnancies. This holding goes farther than the recent Ninth Circuit decision in The Little Sisters of the Poor Jeanne Jugan Residence v. California, et al. No. 18-1192, which limited injunction to the select states that brought the litigation because there was not a sufficient showing of economic injury.

The appeals panel ruled it was necessary to halt the implementation of the rules until it has been decided whether or not the agencies responsible for the rules—the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor—followed the Administrative Procedure Act. The panel was not convinced by either argument presented: that there was good cause sufficient to avoid notice and comment or that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required a religious exemption.

Whether any appeal to the Supreme Court is in progress has yet to be determined. Accordingly, employers may want to take a cautious approach toward limiting contraceptive coverage.

© 2019 McDermott Will & Emery
Article by Judith Wethall of McDermott Will & Emery. Teal Trujillo, a summer associate in our Chicago office, also contributed to this On the Subject.
For more in healthcare regulation, see the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care page.