528 F. App'x 583
7th Cir.2012Background
- Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. employs about 90 people; 70 are in a union, 20 nonunion get their health plan from the company.
- Kortes are Roman Catholic and wish to align their business practices with Catholic teachings on contraception and abortion.
- The company’s health plan currently covers contraception; the ACA contraception mandate requires coverage without cost-sharing for contraception and sterilization in nonexempt plans, effective January 1, 2013 for this company.
- Penalties for noncompliance can reach about $730,000 per year; the Kortes seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement pending appeal.
- District court denied a preliminary injunction; Kortes appealed and moved for injunction pending appeal, which the court now grants.
- RFRA claim is central; court applies a sliding-scale test weighing likelihood of success on the merits against irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA substantial burden and likelihood of success | Kortes contend mandate substantially burdens religious exercise. | Government asserts interest in broad access to contraception justifies mandate; RFRA not implicated for a secular for‑profit entity. | Kort es have a reasonable likelihood of success on RFRA claim. |
| Irreparable harm and balance of harms | Without injunction, religious liberty will suffer irreparably; penalties threaten company viability. | Enforcement serves important public-interest goal of cost-free contraception access; harms are not irreparable. | Irreparable harm established; balance tips in Kortes' favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavel Int'l., Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007) (sliding-scale framework for injunctions; irreparable harm considered)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunctions)
- Alvarez v. ACLU of Ill., 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (RFRA and First Amendment protections; likelihood of success standard)
- Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (balancing harms in injunction analysis)
- Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012) (reaffirmation that sincere religious beliefs are not forfeited by inadvertent nonobservance)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 133 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (discussed in context of burden scope; substantial burden inquiry under RFRA)