I think there may be one mistake regarding East Texas Baptist University. Its cert petition (p. 14) says “ETBU is both the sponsor and administrator of its own self-insured plan.” I haven’t read the cert opp or the reply, and I don’t know if this comes up in either.
Greg Baylor [Alliance Defending Freedom]<http://www.adflegal.org/> Gregory S. Baylor Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Religious Schools 202-393-8690 (Office) 202-888-7628 (Direct Dial) 202-347-3622 (Fax) gbay...@adflegal.org<mailto:gbay...@adflegal.org> ADFlegal.org<http://ADFlegal.org> Not Licensed in DC Practice Limited to Federal Court From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:50 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Unpacking the Zubik case In hopes that it will be of some assistance, I've pulled together a preliminary categorization of all 37 of the petitioners, based upon the representations in the cert.-stage briefs. Please let me know if you notice any mistakes: Categories of petitioners in the seven cases: Employers using insured employee plans (5) Priests for Life (14-1453) Catholic University of America (14-1505) (also uses insured student plan) Oklahoma Wesleyan University (15-119) Oklahoma Baptist University (15-119) (also uses insured student plan) Geneva College (15-191) (also uses insured student plan) Employers using insured student plans (4) Catholic University of America (14-1505) (also uses insured employee plan) Oklahoma Baptist University (15-119) (also uses insured employee plan) Southern Nazarene University (15-119) (also uses self-insured employee plan) Geneva College (15-191) (also uses insured employee plan) Employers using self-insured, TPA-administered, non-“church plan” employee plans (3) Thomas Aquinas College (14-1505) East Baptist University (15-35) Southern Nazarene University (15-119) (also has insured student plan) Employers using self-insured, TPA-administered “church plans” for employees, whose TPAs are not required to provide contraceptive coverage (18) Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Inc. (14-1418) St. Martin Center, Inc. (14-1418) Prince of Peace Center, Inc. (14-1418) Erie Catholic Preparatory School (14-1418) Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (14-453) Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc. (14-453) Don Bosco Cristo Rey High School of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (14-453) Mary of Nazareth Roman Catholic Elementary School, Inc. (14-453) Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (14-453) Victory Housing, Inc. (14-453) Catholic Information Center, Inc. (14-453) Houston Baptist University (15-35) Westminster Theological Seminary (15-35) Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged of Denver (15-105) (whose primary plan TPA--Christian Brothers Services—already has promised not to provide contraceptive coverage even if Little Sisters opts out) Little Sisters of the Poor, Baltimore, Inc. (15-105) Reaching Souls International, Inc. (15-105) Truett-McConnell College, Inc. (15-105) Mid-America Christian University (15-119) Wholly exempt entities that “sponsor” church plans for other employers (3) Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, Inc. (14-1418) Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie (14-1418) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington (14-1505) Directors of wholly exempt entities that “sponsor” church plans for other employers (2) The Most Reverend David A. Zubik (14-1418) The Most Reverend Lawrence T. Persico (14-1418) Directors of an employer (Priests for Life) using an insured employee plan (3) Father Frank Pavone (14-1453) Alveda King (14-1453) Janet Morana (14-1453) Employee church plans themselves (2) Christian Brothers Employee Benefit (15-105) GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention (15-105) An employee church-plan TPA (1) Christian Brothers Services (15-105) (CBS has already said it will not provide contraceptive coverage if requested to do so) 37 petitioners total (four of which use both employee and student plans) On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: FYI -- I hope some of you might find this helpful: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-burwell-and-why.html This e-mail message from Alliance Defending Freedom and any accompanying documents or embedded messages is intended for the named recipients only. Because Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal entity engaged in the practice of law, this communication contains information, which may include metadata, that is confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, are not a named recipient, or are not the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advised that any review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the message. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
