July 28, 2014

Second Federal Court Temporarily Enjoins Application of Contraceptive Mandate to a For-Profit Business

On Oct. 31, 2012, Judge Robert Cleland of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan temporarily enjoined the application of part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) to a for-profit business while the court considers whether the ACA infringes upon the free exercise of religion. A copy of this decision, Legatus v. Sebelius, can befound here.

Daniel Weingartz is the President of Weingartz Supply Company, a family-owned business that sells outdoor power equipment and employs approximately 170 individuals. In accordance with his Catholic faith, Weingartz designed a health insurance policy for his company’s employees that excludes contraception. Weingartz objects to a provision of the ACA, commonly known as the contraceptive mandate, which requires most employer health plans to provide coverage for narrowly defined contraceptive services. Although the contraceptive mandate has an exception for certain non-profit religious employers, there is no exception for for-profit employers. Weingartz and his business argued that the contraception mandate violates their right of free exercise of religion. The Court granted an injunction against the application of the contraceptive mandate to Weingartz Supply Company while the Court considers the merits of the Weingartz’s claims.

This decision is similar to the decision in Newland v. Sebelius, where the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado temporary enjoined the application of the contraceptive mandate to Hercules Industries, Inc., a Colorado corporation that manufactures and distributes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning products and equipment. Our prior blog post on the Newlandcase can be found here.

In contrast, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri recently denied a request for an injunction against the contraceptive mandate. On Sept. 28, 2012, Judge Carol Jackson denied a request for injunction on behalf of O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, a secular, for-profit company in St. Louis, Missouri that is engaged in the business of mining, processing, and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products. Judge Jackson’s decision in O’Brien v. United States Department of Health and Human Services can be found here

Following the re-election of President Obama, it is clear that the ACA will move forward, and the resulting litigation will continue. Given the split developing among the federal district courts, it is becoming more likely that Circuit Courts of Appeal, and eventually the Supreme Court, will consider the application of the contraceptive mandate to private employers. Employers and practitioners should watch for future developments in these cases to see how the courts define the boundaries of religious liberty for for-profit employers.


About the Author

Mark D. Scudder, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Labor Law attorney
Of Counsel

Mark D. Scudder is an of counsel member of Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Labor and Employment Law Department in the Fort Wayne, Indiana office. Mr. Scudder’s practice covers virtually all areas of labor and employment law, including litigation concerning discriminatory practices, worker’s compensation benefits, collective bargaining agreement administration, and grievance and arbitration proceedings. He has represented clients in state and federal courts at all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling, alternative dispute resolution, trial and appeal. He has also...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.