3 ways the #HobbyLobby decision affects your workplace


Mid-morning yesterday, the Internet broke shortly after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in HHS v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..

Jeez, I’m still cleaning out my Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook feeds.

In case your wifi, 4G, 3G, dial-up, TV, radio, and other electronics picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue, the long and short of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision is this: Smaller, closely-held (think: family-owned) companies don’t have to provide Obamacare access to birth control if doing so would conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

So, how does yesterday’s decision affect your workplace? I promised you three ways, and here they are:

  1. The court’s opinion creates an Obamacare exception for closely-held business. If your company isn’t closely held, then there’s nothing to see here.
  2. The Hobby Lobby decision does not allow employers (closely-held or otherwise) to discriminate against employees under the guise of a religious practice. In the dissent, Justice Ginsburg pondered, “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage or according women equal pay for substantially similar work. Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?” Well, no. The majority recognized that “the Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the work force without regard to [a protected class], and prohibitions on [discrimination] are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.”
  3. The Court’s opinion is a good reminder about religious accommodations in the workplace. Title VII requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for a worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business operations. The “sincerity” of an employee’s stated religious belief is usually not in dispute. (More on that here). And, in these situations, an employer should not judge the employee’s religious belief to determine whether it is plausible. Rather, the focus should usually be on whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship — because the burden there is rather low.

Image Credit: “HobbyLobbyStowOhio” by DangApricot – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

  • Ernie Tamayo


    Justice Ginsburg used the classic “slippery slope” argument when she questioned if the Hobby Lobby ruling was not opening the door to other possible discrimination in the workplace under the pretext of religious freedom, she used the example of employment discrimination of homosexuals (sexual orientation). CNN recently reported that religious leaders were seeking exemptions to his upcoming executive order banning the discrimination of homosexuals in the employment process by federal contractors.

    Does this concern have any merit? What are your thoughts?

    Also, aside from ACA implementation, is the expansion of corporate personhood to include religious freedoms a bigger concern?


    • Hi Ernie.

      Thank you for the comment.

      I’m going to punt on the second question and say it’s too early to make that call.

      On your first question, as I read the majority opinion, federal anti-discrimination laws should trump the “religious expression” of any corporation (closely-held or otherwise). Otherwise, that slope is going to get very slippery.