Industry reacts to Hobby Lobby decision

Alden J. Bianchi, practice group leader of law firm Mintz Levins employee benefits & executive compensation practice

Nothing the Supreme Court does surprises me anymore. For the most part, there are no implications for employers. They will still offer group health plans, which will in the vast majority of instances, still offer contraceptive coverage. Only closely held companies whose owners harbor religious objections are affected, and one has to assume that HHS will follow the courts lead and expand the religious accommodation that is currently available to tax-exempts to affected employers under that accommodation, the carrier offers the contraceptive coverage. [Image: Mintz Levin]

R. Scott Oswald, managing principal, The Employment Law Group

Its vital that both employers and employees understand this: Hobby Lobby does not, for instance, make it legal for employers to discriminate against women workers based on a company owners beliefs. Employers who test this idea will run smack into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Court will show them no sympathy.

Ed Fensholt, J.D., senior vice president, director, compliance services, Lockton

The Court took pains to point out its ruling is narrow. It does not, for example, mean that all insurance coverage mandates (e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions) are necessarily impermissible if they conflict with an employers religious beliefs. Nor does the ruling protect employers who might engage in illegal discrimination and then attempt to cloak it as consistent with a religious belief.

The vast majority of employers sponsoring group health plans have complied with the contraception mandate without objection, so the issue has little significance beyond the relative handful of closely held employers siding with Hobby Lobbys position. [Image: Lockton]

Jay Kirschbaum, practice leader of consulting firm Willis human capital practices national legal and research group

Employers who wish to take advantage of the ruling may want to amend their plans in order to make them clear about what is and is not covered. Other employers who do not have objections to the mandate are most likely able to continue with their plans without any changes merely because of this decision. One additional note, however, is that many employers plans have yet to be amended to comply with the general mandates of PPACA. Now might be a good time to review plan documentation and SPDs and determine if they are up to date and if not, take steps to properly amend them. [Image: Willis]

Sharon Cohen, principal, Buck Consultants

Cohen says some of the rulings language suggests that while there is an exemption from the mandate for religious employers, the Supreme Court believes the Department of Health and Human Services should also be able to provide a work-around for these closely held companies. As for how the ruling affects publicly held employers, she believes it is highly impractical, as it would require shareholders to agree to strike contraceptive coverage. But we all know, just because something is impractical, it doesnt mean it wont happen, she says. Well have to wait and see. [Image: Buck Consultants]

Steve Friedman, co-chair, benefits practice group and health care reform, with law firm Littler Mendelson

The implications of this decision could be extremely broad. This decision allows religious beliefs to dictate the extent to which closely held companies must comply with various provisions of the Affordable Care Act. There are certainly other mandates in the ACA apart from those dealing with contraception that could be claimed to be objectionable by particular employers. [Image: Littler Mendelson]