1 / 19

HOBBY LOBBY CASE

HOBBY LOBBY CASE. Autumn Moore & Lisa Meadows. MGMT 6680 – HR Management. introduction. Part 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Part 2 Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins Part 3 Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses. part 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby. Case participants.

chars
Download Presentation

HOBBY LOBBY CASE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HOBBY LOBBY CASE Autumn Moore & Lisa Meadows MGMT 6680 – HR Management

  2. introduction • Part 1 • Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby • Part 2 • Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins • Part 3 • Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses

  3. part 1Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby

  4. Case participants • 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

  5. Hobby lobby’s stance • Opposed to 4 out of the 20 types of contraceptives • IUD made out of copper • IUD that includes progestin • Plan 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

  6. Why people care • There are 2 main sides to this case • Hobby Lobby Supporters • Believe it is an infringement against 1st Amendment rights • Government Supporters • Believe a company should not be able to pick and choose what benefits the insurance policy covers

  7. Questions before court • 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

  8. Medical information • 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

  9. part 2implications if Hobby Lobby wins

  10. Hr implications • 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

  11. implications cont. • Public backlash • Decrease in competitive advantage • Stance is hypocritical based on where their suppliers are located

  12. part 3implications if Hobby Lobby loses

  13. Hr implications • 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)

  14. implications cont. • Maintains initialprecedent set for how corporations are viewed in future cases (would upholdDomino’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

  15. Conclusion

  16. Final thoughts • A company’s right to do something does not mean the company should do something…

  17. recommendations • Provide an insurance policy that covers all forms of contraception • OR • Replace healthcare coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax

  18. references • 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

  19. QUESTIONS…?

More Related