A group of Notre Dame students is filing a lawsuit against their college’s negligent hiring policies. The suit targets not only the policy requiring a pre-qualification interview for anyone wishing to obtain a dental care plan, but also the entire refusal policy. According to the complaint, a number of policies from different companies provided the required paperwork but did not deny coverage. One policy provided an employee could not get the required coverage because he or she was not a “suitably able” person to get the insurance.
There are two sides filing suits in the case.
Two groups of plaintiffs have filed a complaint against the policies of the South Bend University, as well as the Catholic University of America. The first lawsuit was filed by the Americans Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASCA). The second lawsuit was filed by the Notre Dame Students’ Council for Sexual and Gender Diversity. There are several other complainants who have filed similar suits against other companies.
The South Bend University is one of several universities that face a lawsuit brought forth by the Notre Dame Students’ Council for Sexual and Gender Diversity. The suit claims that the policy requiring employees to seek pre-certification to get an individual health insurance plan from their employer violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The suit also claims that the policy denies women equal access to reproductive health care, a right provided by the Supreme Court.
On October 4th, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
According to court records, this was the first time the Seventh Circuit has denied a request for an interim final rule in this case. The plaintiffs are appealing that denial. In the past, there have only been limited opportunities for injunctions. These include the Department of Labor v. Albiran, and United States v. Hobby Lobby. Neither of these cases was granted an injunction.
On October 10th, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a temporary injunction to prevent enforcement of the challenged aspect of the Pill Act. The original legislation, passed in 1996, contained a mandate that employers provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of a religious belief. The plaintiffs argue that this violates the guarantee of equal protection and the right to work. In an interview with CBS News, President Trump indicated that he believed the lawsuit would be successful. “The lawsuit is really about religious freedom and the ability of people to not have certain things taken from them which have been very important to them,” he said.
The president’s comments come in the wake of the announcement that the Trump administration will not appeal a district court ruling that allowed the enforcement of the mandate by Congress.
According to the new directive, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for implementing regulations regarding healthcare, will now “counsel and negotiate” with companies to obtain accommodation for their employees who cannot obtain contraceptive coverage due to religious beliefs. The temporary restraining order was put on hold until further notice. It was expected that the parties involved would reach a settlement agreement by the conclusion of the week, however, it was announced that a meeting between the parties had been cancelled, without any progress made. No reason has been given as to why the parties failed to negotiate, despite the fact that it was widely reported that the parties were close to a compromise agreement.
The plaintiffs, led by Planned Parenthood, are seeking a court declaration that the mandate violates the guarantee of the right to freedom of association protected by the Fifth Amendment.
If this motion is granted, it will be interpreted as a mandate, which will force virtually all employers to either offer contraception coverage to their employees, or face fines and penalties. The Trump administration, for its part, has stated that it will not enforce the Mandate, stating that there is no legal reason to do so. However, if the Court does rule that the contraception mandate is legal, then this would greatly benefit the pro-choice movement, as it would force companies to offer insurance to both employees and owners. This would benefit the plaintiffs greatly.
Should the lawsuit succeed, then almost every single corporation in the country would be required to either provide contraceptive insurance to their employees, or face steep fines and penalties.
This could force many corporations to either raise their prices to cover the cost of contraception, or else find a way to avoid providing it altogether. If the lawsuit forces the Trump Administration to negotiate with the opposing parties, it is possible that they may find a way to partially fund the lawsuit. If this happens, it will once again demonstrate the importance of ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected under the law, even in matters as trivial as ensuring that your boss does not have a free pass to deny you a free meal because of your religious beliefs.