Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

warrior1

(12,325 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:28 PM Jun 2014

There’s been some speculation that Hobby Lobby employees may be able file a Civil Rights Act Title V

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453902/hobby-lobby-means-for-your-health-care/

Although the reproductive rights community is reeling from the implications of the Hobby Lobby decision, the legal fights may not be over. There’s been some speculation that Hobby Lobby employees may be able file a Civil Rights Act Title VII complaint, on the grounds that the company is treating female employees differently than male employees by refusing to cover gender-specific health services.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There’s been some speculation that Hobby Lobby employees may be able file a Civil Rights Act Title V (Original Post) warrior1 Jun 2014 OP
I hope they will do just that. This ruling is very discriminatory. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2014 #1
That would be terrific. Of course, HL will fire their asses and SCOTUS will uphold the firings. valerief Jun 2014 #2
Unfortunately they'll be in fear of their jobs. Pinkflamingo Jun 2014 #3
Maybe Michael's or Joanne's (Religious employers?) HockeyMom Jun 2014 #5
I doubt they will, though. There's a lot of women who either don't care TwilightGardener Jun 2014 #4
DU Rec. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #6
And when that gets to the Supreme (dumbass) Court, who will those five justices side with? tclambert Jun 2014 #7
I don't know how far they would get with that.... Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #8
I hope there is a flood of litigation lark Jun 2014 #9

valerief

(53,235 posts)
2. That would be terrific. Of course, HL will fire their asses and SCOTUS will uphold the firings.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:32 PM
Jun 2014

Cuz the lunatics are running the asylum.

Pinkflamingo

(177 posts)
3. Unfortunately they'll be in fear of their jobs.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:34 PM
Jun 2014

And how many employees will get accidentally pregnant because birth control won't be readily available? But God forbid they become "takers" because of an unwanted pregnancy.
 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
5. Maybe Michael's or Joanne's (Religious employers?)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:54 PM
Jun 2014

will hire them if Hobby Lobby fires them. Great Publicity for those two companies!!!!!

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
4. I doubt they will, though. There's a lot of women who either don't care
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:41 PM
Jun 2014

or really like being cowed by the religiously insane.

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
7. And when that gets to the Supreme (dumbass) Court, who will those five justices side with?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jun 2014

A corporation or women? Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy wouldn't pass up another opportunity to slap down women and elevate the rights of corporations.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
8. I don't know how far they would get with that....
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jun 2014

Although I am an attorney I have zero experience in Civil Rights legislation but I think it would be fairly easy to quash a Title V challenge.

The issue likely would be framed that this has nothing to do with a gender-specific health service other than the fact that only in a female's body can a fertilized egg attach itself to the uterine wall and 9 months later pop out a baby.

They can easily distinguish the specific forms of female birth control covered by the Court's decision from a vasectomy. A vasectomy prevents the sperm from leaving the man's body. The forms of birth control covered by the Court's decision are believed (even if they don't all necessarily work this way) to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. The plaintiffs allege that since they believe life begins at conception, anything that prevents the "life" from attaching itself to the uterine wall and developing into a baby is infanticide. So a vasectomy and the hormonal type birth control pills are different in that they prevent the egg from being fertilized.

Although the Court tries to make clear that the holding only applies to the contraception mandate and at least certain forms of contraception (I haven't read the opinion but will this weekend) and not to other coverage under the ACA such as immunizations, blood transfusions, etc. I can see where other plaintiffs may come forward to challenge those as well.

Once you crack the door open I expect there will be a flood of additional challenges not only to the ACA but also to "generally applicable laws" such as those related to non-discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and possibly even gender, religion and ethnic origin.

I can see someone coming in and saying that their belief that homosexuals are evil and must be destroyed means they do not have to comply with non-discrimination laws with respect to LGBT employees. If there was anytime for Justice Scalia to issue a "slippery slope" warning this was one. But that job was left to Justice Ginsburg. She can see what is coming

lark

(23,003 posts)
9. I hope there is a flood of litigation
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:28 PM
Jun 2014

Scientologist - unite and fight! Make the felonious five have to really try to defend this ridiculous decision, gum up the court system.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There’s been some specula...