Richard, I think that's right. From the opinion:
Second, the WHWA includes an express exemption for "religious employers" if prescription contraceptive methods are "contrary to the religious employer's religious tenets" (Insurance Law § 3221 [l] [16] [A]; § 4303 [cc] [1]). The exemption defines a "religious employer" as an entity that satisfies four criteria: (1) the inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity; (2) the entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity; (3) the entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity; and (4) the entity is a nonprofit organization as described in 26 USC § 6033 (a) (2) (A) (i) or (iii) (Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) (Insurance Law § 3221 [l] [16] [A] [1]; § 4303 [cc] [1] [A]) (hereinafter the exemption). Your electric company clearly would not meet requirements 1 and 4. And unless you do something interesting with the hypo, requirement 3. Jim Maule >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/13/2006 1:32:11 PM >>> Jim: Thanks for the article. Am I right that the exemption (as in Calif.) only applies to organizations engaged in promoting religious teachings? Thus, even if I called my electrical company "St. Stanislaus" and hired only Catholics (presuming I could do that), and included religious symbolism in all my ads, had a priest on staff to consult with on ethical practices, etc., the fact that my business was not proselytizing means no exemption for me? Thanks, Richard Dougherty James Maule wrote: > >From http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1137060315143 > > N.Y. Court Rejects Employers' Challenge to Contraception Law > > Religious-affiliated employers faced with what they say is a morally > untenable choice of either offering prescription coverage for contraceptives, > which they oppose on theological grounds, or denying their employees what > they view as a basic right lost a major establishment clause battle Thursday > when a narrowly divided appellate panel upheld the state's Women's Health and > Wellness Act. > > By a 3-2 margin, the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, rejected myriad > constitutional challenges by Catholic and Baptist organizations, and upheld > the law requiring employers that provide prescription insurance coverage to > their workers to cover contraceptives. > > . . . . . . . > > Go to http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1137060315143 for rest of > article. > > URL for the opinion: > http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2006/96621.pdf > > Excerpts: > > "In sum, the WHWA easily satisfies the test of Smith, and thus, while it > incidentally imposes a burden on plaintiffs' free exercise rights, we find > that it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." > > "All things considered, and limiting our review to the appropriate judicial > inquiry, we conclude that the balance tips away from plaintiffs' right to > free exercise and in favor of the WHWA, and > therefore find that the WHWA does not violate NY Constitution, article I, § > 3." > > "Because plaintiffs' expressive association claim lacks this necessary > factual predicate, their assertions that the WHWA violates the First > Amendment in this regard are wholly without merit." > > "Finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated a hybrid free exercise/free > speech claim, the dissent proceeds to apply strict scrutiny to the WHWA, and > concludes that the state's asserted interests in gender equity and women's > healthcare are undermined, and that the statute is not narrowly tailored > because it encourages nonexempt religious organizations to opt out of > providing prescription coverage. While we disagree with the determination to > apply strict scrutiny in the first instance, we note that this analysis fails > to acknowledge the compelling state interests at issue, and ignores the > unrebutted presumption that the Legislature conducted adequate fact-finding > with respect to the effect of the opt-out provision." > > "Inasmuch as no plaintiff ever claimed the exemption, a potentially > entangling inquiry into plaintiffs' religious duty to inculcate religious > values and spread the faith through their ministries was never conducted, and > thus, this action gives us no occasion to consider an "as applied" challenge > to the constitutionality of the exemption (see Catholic Charities of > Sacramento v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 32 Cal 4th 527, 546-547 > [2004], supra)." > > "Despite withstanding constitutional muster under the Lemon test, plaintiffs > contend that the exemption discriminates between religious denominations in > violation of Larson v Valente (456 US 228 [1982], supra). We do not > agree.....The legislative record provides no basis for us to either discern > or attribute a legislative intent to limit the exemption to the Catholic > Church or to preclude other denominations from invoking it, and, as we have > noted, it does not have that effect." > > "This case simply does not involve a civil intrusion into internal church > dispute resolution and, therefore, plaintiffs' "church autonomy" argument is > unavailing." > > Jim Maule > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
