Hobby Lobby, Resisting State Subpoena, Is Drawn Into New Birth Control Suit
"The state of Washington has no business demanding nationwide data from some of the biggest private companies in the country," lawyers for Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. tell a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington.
December 15, 2017 at 12:38 PM
3 minute read
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the arts and craft company whose religious rights were the centerpiece of a dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, has been drawn back into a fight over birth control insurance. This time, the company is resisting a state subpoena for information about employment practices.
The state of Washington is suing the Trump administration over rules that would allow nearly all employers to refuse to provide contraceptive insurance for their employees if the employer has a religious or moral objection. The new rules were issued in October by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and almost immediately afterward, eight lawsuits were filed challenging them in federal district courts.
In Washington v. Trump, filed in federal district court in Tacoma, the state's attorneys subpoenaed eight companies, including Hobby Lobby, for information about their employment practices and employee compensation. The state contends it needs that information to establish standing—injury caused by the rollback—to challenge the rules. The Trump administration's U.S. Justice Department is arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state lacks standing to go forward.
Five of the eight companies have asked U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton of the Western District of Washington to block the subpoenas, which require production of the information on Dec. 15, 18 or 19. Although all eight conduct business in Washington, five, including Hobby Lobby, are based out of state, according to their counsel, Michael Patterson of Seattle's Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, and Eric Kniffin of Colorado Springs' Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie.
Besides Hobby Lobby, the other companies are: Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., J.E. Dunn Construction Co., Electric Mirror LLC and Continuant Inc. Conestoga Wood, like Hobby Lobby, was a party to the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. A 5-4 majority held that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive insurance mandate as applied to closely held corporations and their religious owners violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Even if the five companies objected to all [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]-approved contraceptives, the subpoenas are not 'tailored' to help Washington prove standing,” Patterson wrote in the motion to quash the subpoenas. “They seek nationwide information and are therefore grossly overbroad.”
Lawyers for the companies called the subpoenas overbroad and said they “do not bother to ask for information specific to each company's Washington employees.”
Washington filed its lawsuit in October and argued that the Trump administration rules violated the First and Fifth amendments as well as civil rights protections. The state's attorney general is asking the district court to issue an injunction halting implementation of the rules.
In addition to Washington state, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed separate lawsuits challenging the rules. A hearing was held Dec. 12 in the California challenge, which has been joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia.
The court papers Hobby Lobby and the other companies filed are posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readHigh Court Asked to Review DOJ's 'Illusory Promise,' Religious Charter School, Meta Class Action
3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Trending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250