Legal Analysis: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores & its Implications

This case study examines the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, focusing on the interplay between religious freedom and business law. The case revolves around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Affordable Care Act of 2010, specifically concerning the mandate for employers to provide contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. Hobby Lobby, a for-profit company, argued that providing certain contraceptive methods violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court's decision in favor of Hobby Lobby established that for-profit businesses can assert religious objections under federal law. The analysis also considers dissenting opinions, which raised concerns about the impact on employees' rights and the potential for discrimination. The study suggests policies that balance religious freedom with employees' healthcare needs, emphasizing the importance of clear separation and respect for differing beliefs within the workplace. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and solved assignments for students.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
The case of Burwell V Hobby Lobby Stores lays down the perspective that a profit
making business organisation can put forward its religious view under the federal law. This
case talks about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, which reference the
government of United States to bring in an action that stops a for-profit company to exercise
its choice of religion or religious acts. This act clearly stated that the Congress does not
discriminate towards men and women who desire to carry forward their businesses all
entrepreneurship as a for-profit corporation in the way their religious believes requires them
to do. The decision of this case is the first of its kind where the Supreme Court held that a
profit making business also has the right to follow its religious views under federal law
(Liptak, 2014). In the same case there has been dissenting opinion where justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg stated that the ruling is a decision of startling breadth (Ginsburg, 2014). It was
argued that such notion of the company jeopardize the particular female employees' belief
who does not conform to the company’s religious perspective.
In this case the company put forwarded its objection to pay emergency contraceptive
medicines like Ella, Plan B, et cetera along with two types of intrauterine devices another
contraceptive options like birth control pills, diaphragms, condoms as a part of its Health
Insurance activity towards the female employees. The company argued that it feels to be
forced to pay for such things under the Affordable Care Act 2010, why it feels unnecessary to
do so for contraception is an extremely personal matter for a woman and it should depend
upon her whims and fancies only. In addition, it was also argued that it has a religious right to
hold the Christian belief that the use of contraception may sometimes lead to abortion, which
is a sin in the eyes of the God (Fletcher, 2015).
In such circumstances, the company should follow a lenient policy where it should
include those women who are up and ready to receive the birth control options from the
company. Such policy would keep the traditionalists away from the modern perspectives and

2BUSINESS LAW
norms that the companies need to follow to conform to the laws and regulations of the State.
On the other hand, the employees who are against the use of contraception should be kept
away from it expressly under strict policies implemented by the company (Eversley, 2015).
Therefore, it can be concluded that a clear separation between the female employees
who welcome the company’s approach of providing contraception options with the ones who
do not welcome such perspective. In addition, the company should have its religious right to
hold the Christian belief pertaining to the use of contraception and thus barring its
distribution, should also be respected by the employees.

3BUSINESS LAW
References
Affordable Care Act 2010
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Eversley, L. R. (2015). Jointhedissent: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Hobby Lobby
Effect. Alb. L. Rev., 79, 269.
Fletcher, J. F. (2015). Morals and medicine: The moral problems of the patient's right to
know the truth, contraception, artificial insemination, sterilization, euthanasia. Princeton
University Press.
Ginsburg, R. B. (2014). A Conversation Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Professor
Robert A. Stein. Minn. L. Rev., 99, 1-25.
Liptak, A. (2014). Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. New
York Times.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993