Molly, a specialist in Hobby Lobby Stores wishes to use one of the contraceptives not offered in the Hobby Lobby insurance plan. Hobby Lobby Stores adheres to the Affordable Care Act guidelines to provide contraceptives for free apart from the four types of birth control which it considers as abortifacient. According to the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA) discrimination on the basis of employee’s reproductive health decision is prohibited. The provision therefore prompts the lawsuit by Molly against Hobby Lobby Stores for denying her certain contraceptives. The case is before the District of Columbia court.
Issue
Is Hobby Lobby’s Policy of denying Molly certain contraceptives a violation of RHNDA? Have Hobby Lobby Stores propelled discrimination based on reproductive health decisions?
Rule
The US Department of Health and Human Services in the year 2012 issued a requirement for employers to provide health insurance in order for beneficiaries to access contraceptives free of charge. Health insurers therefore are mandated to offer insurance to the fourteen types of contraceptives at a free cost to the female subscribers in accordance to the Affordable Care Act. The RHDNA on the other hand prohibits discrimination on the basis of reproductive health decisions. The RHNDA protects employees from discrimination which arises after one makes personal decisions. The bill which amends the 1977’s Human Rights Act bestows the responsibility of organization to respect individual decision without discrimination (Ravitch, Frank & Larry 120). The requirement therefore promotes equal treatment to all women. Under the RHNDA, employers are forced to cover employees’ decisions on reproductive matters despite the fact that the organization may feel otherwise. This outlines that discrimination is prohibited due to the fact that every individual is entitled to personal opinion and decision.
The case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith supports Molly’s argument that institutions should be barred from deciding for individuals (Ravitch, Frank & Larry 101). The case suggests that religious-accommodations should be put in place in order to remove restrictive measures. General applicability of ideals secludes certain persons in the society. Encompassing individual rights entails eradicating retrogressive factors such as discrimination.
Application
Hobby lobby’s policy of denying Molly certain contraceptives is a violation of RHDNA. As outlined under the RHNDA, the decision of an individual to use certain forms of contraceptives is lawful and therefore should not be denied. Employers have the obligation to remit the request of their employees without favor or discrimination. The fact that Hobby Lobby failed to offer Molly the contraceptive she required shows a discriminative behavior. Hobby Lobby Stores, which is an institution that base its decisions on religious beliefs, is prevented from infringing on the rights of its employees. For churches, schools, businesses to judge individuals and implement laws on the basis of their beliefs are not only discriminatory but also an injustice.
Conclusion
In summary therefore, Molly is entitled to the type of contraceptive she requires. It is an act of discrimination for Hobby Lobby Stores to deny Molly the access to the contraceptive based on the religious alignment. It is a contravention to the RHNDA and limits the freedom from discrimination. Equal treatment and adherence to laws should be the reality in all employment sectors.
Hobby Lobby’s Case:
Facts
The lawsuit filed by Molly accuses Hobby Lobby Stores for violating the RHNDA. It propels injustices committed by the business against Molly, the employee. According to the court, reliance on Hobby Lobby v Burwell is irrelevant to the particular case. Hereby clarifying the position of Hobby Lobby Stores and justifying its decision as well as countering the accusations made by Molly is necessary.
Issue
Is it true that Hobby Lobby v Burwell has no relevance to this case? Are Molly’s allegations of discrimination justified? Is Hobby Lobby Stores mandated to adhere to the RHNDA?
Rule
The district court is mandated to adhere to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and SCOTUS decisions. This therefore means that the freedom of association and the freedom of religion are guaranteed. It connotes the fact that taking account the RFRA is basic in deciding the case. Adhering to the RHNDA should go hand in hand with other lawful provisions in the United States. Ideally, the RHNDA contradicts with the provisions of the RFRA. The RHNDA restricts religious ground, organizations and individuals from exercising their religious practices on various platforms. It limits the decision making process and enforces ideologies that are foreign to these institutions.
The issue of discrimination is unfounded due to the fact that Hobby Lobby Stores made independent decision based on its beliefs and not on the fact that Molly needed the contraceptives not offered. It is crucial to point out that religious doctrines are recognized by law. Center to the argument is the denial of contraceptives which violate the right to life. It is for this reason that the case of Hobby Lobby v Burwell is relevant (Ravitch, Frank & Larry 22). The case of Hobby Lobby v Burwell is a landmark case on the issues of religious decisions affecting employees. The facts surrounding the case are that the plaintiffs sued the defenders for making decisions based on religious freedoms. Questioning the requirement of religious organizations to channel activities it considers immoral and against religious principles was the basis of Hobby Lobby v Burwell. In judgment, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby arguing that for-profit organizations were governed by the RFRA hence the contraception mandate does not force these religious groups to make decisions that go against their beliefs.
The issue of discrimination does not stand before the court due to the fact that Hobby Lobby merely expressed its religious inclinations. In the case of Thomas v Review of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the court held that drawing a line between religion and injustices is necessary (Ravitch, Frank & Larry 22). Hereby, an honest conviction and obstruction of justice is different from exercising one’s religious beliefs.
Application
It is evident from the above outlook that Hobby Lobby Stores did not discriminate Molly. Hobby Lobby Stores merely exercised its obligations as recommended by religion. As covered by the RFRA, the defense has the rights and freedoms to exercise its beliefs. Enforcing the abortifacient medicines not only contradicts the moral holding but also subjects the institution to unjust treatment. Also, it is impossible to separate the case of Hobby Lobby v Burwell from this particular case. The judgment in this case not only elaborates the issue of religious freedom but also analyses the standing of institutions on decision making guidelines. Adherence to the RHNDA by Hobby Lobby Stores is a debatable matter if it contradicts with its rights and freedoms. Discrimination of employees on the basis of reproductive health decisions is an illegal matter but is not envisioned in this case.
Conclusion
To sum up, Hobby Lobby v Burwell case is relevant in this case. Molly’s accusation on Hobby Lobby Stores’ discrimination is not justified. Obligations under the RHNDA contravenes with the freedoms and rights allocated to institutions in the RFRA. The case before the District of Columbia court should therefore be held in favor of the defense herein Hobby Lobby Stores.