HOBBY LOBBY CASEAutumn Moore & Lisa Meadows

MGMT 6680 – HR Management

Part 1Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby

Part 2Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins

Part 3Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses

INTRODUCTION

PART 1Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby

9 Supreme Court Justices

3 females and 6 males

Hobby Lobby

Owned by the Green family – belong to Southern Baptist church

Roughly 13,000 employees

Kathleen Sebelius

Health & Human Services Secretary

Oral arguments were March 25, 2014; ruling expected late June 2014

CASE PARTICIPANTS

Opposed to 4 out of the 20 types of contraceptivesIUD made out of copperIUD that includes progestinPlan B (emergency contraceptive)Ella (emergency contraceptive)

Opposed to related education and counseling

Believe the 4 forms cause abortions

Requirement to cover the 4 forms violates religious beliefs

HOBBY LOBBY’S STANCE

There are 2 main sides to this case

Hobby Lobby SupportersBelieve it is an infringement against 1st

Amendment rights

Government SupportersBelieve a company should not be able to

pick and choose what benefits the insurance policy covers

WHY PEOPLE CARE

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) allow a for-profit corporation to deny contraceptive coverage based on the religious views of the owner

Are the 1st Amendment rights of non-profit owners more important than the rights of a corporation owner

QUESTIONS BEFORE COURT

National Institute of Health, Mayo Clinic, and International Federation of OB/GYN all agree:

“the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy”

It prevents fertilization the same way the 16 types of contraception Hobby Lobby approves of do

RU-486/Mifeprex (abortion pill) is not considered a contraceptive; therefore, is not covered under Affordable Care Act

MEDICAL INFORMATION

PART 2Implications if Hobby

Lobby Wins

Sotomayer regarding United States vs. Lee (1982)

Slippery slope effect regarding other healthcare related issues

Sets a precedent that companies could impose religious beliefs on employees

Decreases the pool of willing employees to work for Hobby Lobby

A lawsuit regarding sex discrimination would likely be filed

Opens the flood gates for other discrimination cases

HR IMPLICATIONS

Public backlash

Decrease in competitive advantage

Stance is hypocritical based on where their suppliers are located

IMPLICATIONS CONT.

PART 3Implications if Hobby

Lobby Loses

Companies might eventually be forced to recognize same-sex marriage in regard to including domestic partners on health insurance coverage

Hobby Lobby will choose to pay the fine vs. provide coverage

Religious liberty loses meaningfulness

Opens up doors to government requiring other religious to go against their beliefs (Quaker example)

HR IMPLICATIONS

Maintains initial precedent set for how corporations are viewed in relation to their corporate veil (would uphold Domino’s Pizza vs. McDonald)

Protects the religious rights of employees

Hobby Lobby could potentially have access to health records since it is self-insured (HIPAA loophole)

Potential to set precedent for limiting other 1st Amendment rights

IMPLICATIONS CONT.

CONCLUSION

A company’s right to do something does not mean

the company should do something…

FINAL THOUGHTS

Provide an insurance policy that covers all forms of contraception

OR

Replace healthcare coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax

RECOMMENDATIONS

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate/

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2013/december/08/hobby-lobby-case-is-about-rights,-not-contraceptives.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebelius_v._Hobby_Lobby#Implications

REFERENCES

QUESTIONS…?