I doubt that any one has first-hand knowledge. But I will offer two suppositions with reasonably high confidence.
First, the insurer paying for contraception directly should have no greater confidentiality risk than the insurer paying through the insurance plan. I doubt that a second insurance policy would be any different, but the government has strongly resisted that in any event. Second, I have never heard of a religious employer firing someone for using contraception. If they started doing that, who would they have left? They couldn’t staff their facilities. I have heard about firings over in vitro fertilization (where the Church believes that discarded embryos are human beings who are killed), and over same-sex marriages. But not over contraception. My failure to hear about it doesn’t mean it’s never happened. But it is surely rare. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Case, Mary Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 11:24 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Risk of job loss to employees who avail themselves of contraception? As the quixotic quest for less restrictive alternatives to the contraception mandate accommodation proposed by the Obama Administration continues, am I right to think that, from the perspective of the employee contraceptive users, a concern has to be confidentiality because, to the extent their employer is a religious non-profit opposed to contraception, they risk being fired should it become known they are, through their use of contraceptives, not living up to the tenets of their employer’s religion? I have seen no explicit discussion of the effect of a less seamless coverage (for example through a separate policy or card such as favored by Justice Alito in oral argument) on confidentiality. Is there one? And if there is not one, is that because a) confidentiality can be legally and practically assured to the same extent in any event or b) because, to the extent it is legal to require these employees to abide by Church prohibitions on contraception, factoring into the feasibility of an alternative to the accommodation the degree to which the alternative facilitates deceiving the employer is not something that can openly and properly be discussed? Please forgive my ignorance if the answers to these questions are obvious.
_______________________________________________ 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.
