This case is consolidated with six other cases mentioned shortly. The legal basis of all seven cases is against the reach of Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
This Class action lawsuit is based on the below stated facts and claims:
(1) Whether RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is violated; as RFRA doesn’t allow a secular, non-profit corporation to deny the employee benefits granted by law on the basis of religion.
(2) Whether the First Amendment is violated; as accepting contraceptive coverage is against their religious norms.
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL POSITION
The Little Sisters homes in Denver and Baltimore, seeks protection for the Little Sisters and other Catholic ministries that provide health benefits with the help of Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust and Christian …show more content…
A religious employer is defined as a non-profit organization that is affiliated to churches or exclusively religious activities of any religious order.
In July 2013, religious accommodations were made for “eligible organizations” for group health plans. An eligible organization is not required to pay taxes for contraceptive coverage if it has religious objections. To be relieved of these obligations, it only needs to complete Form 700 stating that it is an eligible organization and provide a copy of the same to its insurance agency or third party administrator.
The Little Sisters of Poor filed a lawsuit in 2013 claiming that the HHS Mandate imposes a burden on their religious practice. The trial court and the Tenth Circuit had denied the Little Sisters any relief, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted temporary protection from the contraceptive mandate on Dec 31 2013, just hours before the schedule of mandate’s fines into effect.
On January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court extended the period of safe harbour for the Little Sisters.
On July 23, 2015, the Little Sisters appealed to the Supreme
ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
This Class action lawsuit is based on the below stated facts and claims:
(1) Whether RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is violated; as RFRA doesn’t allow a secular, non-profit corporation to deny the employee benefits granted by law on the basis of religion.
(2) Whether the First Amendment is violated; as accepting contraceptive coverage is against their religious norms.
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL POSITION
The Little Sisters homes in Denver and Baltimore, seeks protection for the Little Sisters and other Catholic ministries that provide health benefits with the help of Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust and Christian …show more content…
A religious employer is defined as a non-profit organization that is affiliated to churches or exclusively religious activities of any religious order.
In July 2013, religious accommodations were made for “eligible organizations” for group health plans. An eligible organization is not required to pay taxes for contraceptive coverage if it has religious objections. To be relieved of these obligations, it only needs to complete Form 700 stating that it is an eligible organization and provide a copy of the same to its insurance agency or third party administrator.
The Little Sisters of Poor filed a lawsuit in 2013 claiming that the HHS Mandate imposes a burden on their religious practice. The trial court and the Tenth Circuit had denied the Little Sisters any relief, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted temporary protection from the contraceptive mandate on Dec 31 2013, just hours before the schedule of mandate’s fines into effect.
On January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court extended the period of safe harbour for the Little Sisters.
On July 23, 2015, the Little Sisters appealed to the Supreme