Michael Masinter also argues that Belmont Abbey
may have difficulty demonstrating that the resolution of that claim
in favor of plaintiffs substantially
burdens the free exercise of religion
because an
individual female employee makes the choice to purchase birth
control pills, and
Michael Masinter wrote:
Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, and only women get pregnant.
Denying contraceptive coverage to men does not expose men to
pregnancy, but denying coverage to women does expose women to
pregnancy.
Let's tease out the issues here. It's possible that deny
There are many hurdles to a successful RFRA defense to otherwise
unlawful sex discrimination (making the contested assumption that
denial of coverage is sex discrimination). Congress has already
provided both the 702(a) exemption and the bona fide occupational
qualification defense for emp
I don't see what Belmont Abbey's status under one statute necessarily has to
do with its status under another, especially one as general as RFRA. What I
think you are obliquely saying is that Belmont Abbey is not a "person" under
RFRA, on the grounds that RFRA doesn't apply to institutional "person
Belmont Abbey might have a better chance with its RFRA argument if it
were a religious institution entitled by section 702(a) of Title VII
to practice religious discrimination, and if as such an employer, it
conditioned employment on foregoing the use of birth control as an
expression of re
So for purposes of the law-n-religion analysis, the issue is whether Belmont
Abbey can claim, either under the constitution or RFRA (this being a Federal
matter), that it is entitled to a religious exception. Sticking with RFRA to
avoid the complexities of post-Smith analysis, the government would
inter wrote:
From: Michael R. Masinter
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing
Contraceptive Coverage from Health Insurance
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 5:51 PM
The PDA makes denial of health insurance benefits relatin
--- On Sat, 8/15/09, Michael R. Masinter wrote:
From: Michael R. Masinter
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive
Coverage from Health Insurance
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 5:51 PM
The PDA makes denial of health
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive
Coverage from Health Insurance
If you remember in Conn. it was legal to
The PDA makes denial of health insurance benefits relating to
pregnancy sex discrimination without regard to whether an employer
denies men coverage for some other condition that affects only men.
Denying coverage for a prescription drug that prevents pregnancy, a
risk to which only women
Whatever else may be right or wrong with Gilbert or the statute, Griswold
was a constitutional claim based on the flat prohibiting by legislation of a
form of birth control for women, whereas the EEOC finding in Belmont Abbey
is a matter of what the college will fund as part of its private health
i
I'm not sure how paul arrives at his characterization of my response
to an inquiry of another in which I sketch a possible way a court
could go wrong.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that even though Gilbert was overturned by
legislation, the legislation did not in fact reach the illogic of the
ilto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: EEOC says
Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive Coverage from Health
Insurance
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu954.262.3835 (fax)
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, Steven Jamar wrote:
From: Steven Jamar
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing
Contraceptive
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive
Coverage from Health Insurance
Steve: Your argument here would suggest that the court should reverse
Griswold. Moreover, oral contraception is used for other things besides birth
)
pf...@albanylaw.edu
www.paulfinkelman.com
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, Steven Jamar wrote:
From: Steven Jamar
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive
Coverage from Health Insurance
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
Date: Thursday, A
The Supreme Court in General Electric v. Gilbert held that the denial of
pregnancy benefits was not sex discrimination under Title VII. But Congress
came back with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which modified Title VII to
reverse Gilbert's effect. The article doesn't mention the PDA, but I
I haven't really kept up with decisions and actions in this area, but
the Supreme Court held that refusal of pregnancy benefits was not sex
discrimination and so it would seem that it would easily enough use
the same (il)logic to rule that there was no sex discrimination here
-- just run-of
I am interested in Listserv participants reactions to the following story
(which I have copied below from the following site:
http://www.gastongazette.com/news/college-36646-discriminated-eeoc.html )
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that B
19 matches
Mail list logo
