{"id":1382,"date":"2017-01-09T19:42:40","date_gmt":"2017-01-09T19:42:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw2\/?post_type=chapter&p=1382"},"modified":"2017-01-09T19:42:40","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T19:42:40","slug":"burwell-v-hobby-lobby-can-corporations-exercise-freedom-of-religion","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw2\/chapter\/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-can-corporations-exercise-freedom-of-religion\/","title":{"raw":"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Can corporations exercise freedom of religion?","rendered":"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Can corporations exercise freedom of religion?"},"content":{"raw":"

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013)<\/h1>\nThe Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. As stated in the Act, its purpose is:\n\nto provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.\n\nThe Case\n
\n
\n\nThe Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees. The Green family has organized the business around the principles of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.\n\nOn September 12, 2012, the Greens, as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and challenged the contraception requirement. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).\n\nDoes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company\u2019s owners?\n\nYes.\u00a0 The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method<\/strong> of satisfying the government\u2019s interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services\u2019 exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds.\n\nThe Impact<\/strong>\n\nBurwell v. Hobby Lobby is an interpretation of the RFRA and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nFor \"closely-held companies\", the Court's ruling directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.\n\nThe ruling could have widespread impact, allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws\n\nBLR, a benefits compliance firm, shares its interpretation of the impact on employers.\n\nhttp:\/\/youtu.be\/v8MbDZMtOhU","rendered":"

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013)<\/h1>\n

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion. As stated in the Act, its purpose is:<\/p>\n

to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.<\/p>\n

The Case<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees. The Green family has organized the business around the principles of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<\/p>\n

On September 12, 2012, the Greens, as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and challenged the contraception requirement. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).<\/p>\n

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company\u2019s owners?<\/p>\n

Yes.\u00a0 The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method<\/strong> of satisfying the government\u2019s interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services\u2019 exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds.<\/p>\n

The Impact<\/strong><\/p>\n

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is an interpretation of the RFRA and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

For “closely-held companies”, the Court’s ruling directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.<\/p>\n

The ruling could have widespread impact, allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws<\/p>\n

BLR, a benefits compliance firm, shares its interpretation of the impact on employers.<\/p>\n