ILNews

7th Circuit grants injunction in company’s suit against providing employees contraceptives

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a case out of Madison, Ind., to be nearly identical to one out of Southern Illinois challenging the federal mandate that employers must provide contraceptives to employees despite religious objections, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction Wednesday.

The appellate court issued its order in William D. Grote III, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, 13-1077, overturning Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s refusal to grant the Grote family’s request for a preliminary injunction pending appeal against the enforcement of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations that require Grote Industries to provide contraception and sterilization procedures in its group health insurance plan.

The Grotes object to providing this coverage for their employees through their self-insured plan because it conflicts with the family’s Catholic beliefs. In their lawsuit, they assert claims under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as claims alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the mandate, the company had to begin providing coverage Jan. 1.

The day after Barker denied the Grotes’ motion, the 7th Circuit issued a preliminary injunction in Korte v. Sebelius, 12-3841, pending appeal. The Kortes also sued claiming the mandate violates the RFRA. The 7th Circuit found the Kortes established a reasonable likelihood of success on their RFRA claim and the harm to the Kortes’ religious liberty rights outweighed the temporary harm to the government’s interest of providing greater access to health care.

Judges Joel Flaum and and Diane Sykes found no material distinction between the cases and consolidated them for appeal.  

Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner dissented, believing the appellants haven’t shown they are reasonably likely to prevail on the merits of their claims and expanded on the doubts she expressed in Korte.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT