Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
926 F. Supp. 2d 273
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Francis A. Gilardi, Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, along with Fresh Unlimited, Inc. and Freshway Logistics, Inc., challenge ACA contraception/abortifacient coverage regulations under RFRA and related statutes.
- Freshway corporations are secular, for-profit entities with about 400 employees, owned 50/50 by the Gilardis, who are practicing Catholics.
- Regulations require non-grandfathered group health plans to cover certain preventive services, including FDA-approved contraceptives; exemptions exist for grandfathered plans, religious employers, and certain nonprofits.
- Freshway plans are self-insured; the plan is renewed April 1, 2013; the institutions do not qualify for religious-employer exemption or safe harbor.
- Gilardis argue complying with the mandate would compel them to facilitate or fund immoral contraceptives and abortion, contrary to their sincerely held Catholic beliefs.
- Court considers whether the Freshway Corporations or the Gilardis can demonstrate a RFRA substantial burden and whether preliminary relief is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freshway Corporations exercise religion under RFRA. | Freshway believes the Gilardis' religious beliefs are attributable to the corporations. | Freshway, as secular for-profit entities, does not exercise religion. | Freshway Corporations do not exercise religion; no RFRA burden. |
| Whether the Gilardis’ RFRA rights are substantially burdened by the regulations. | Regulations compel subsidizing/arranging immoral contraception/abortion via the corporations. | Any burden is detached, indirect, or not imposed on the owners personally due to corporate form. | No substantial burden on the Gilardis; RFRA not violated. |
| Whether RFRA requires a likelihood of success on the merits for a preliminary injunction given failure on the merits. | RFRA imposes strict scrutiny; plaintiffs are likely to succeed. | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success on RFRA merits. | Likelihood of success not demonstrated; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Division, Department of Human Services of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (RFRA reaction to Smith’s neutrality/general applicability test)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (establishes compelling interest/least restrictive means standard)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (inescapable burden on religious practice in state compulsory attendance)
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) (corporate/employee religion considerations and secular obligations)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (2012) (distinction between personal religion and corporate form in RFRA context)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (recognizes substantial burden balancing under RFRA in religious use of illegal substances)