Beckwith Elec. Co. v. Sebelius

960 F.Supp.2d 1328

BECKWITH ELECTRIC CO., INC., and Thomas Beckwith, Plaintiffs,

v.Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Seth D. Harris, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; United States Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; and United States Department of the Treasury, Defendants.

Case No. 8:13–cv–0648–T–17MAP.

United States District Court,

M.D. Florida,

Tampa Division.

June 25, 2013.

Erin Elizabeth Mersino, Richard Thompson, Ann Arbor, MI, Paul Rodger Pizzo, Scott A. Richards, Fowler White Boggs, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Michael Charles Pollack, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Beckwith Electric Co., Inc. (“Beckwith Electric”), and Thomas R. Beckwith (“Beckwith”), seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a regulatory mandate that compels health care coverage that would include provision of any FDA-defined emergency contraceptive and other named alternatives. As grounds for relief, plaintiffs rely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C § 2000bb, et seq., and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Having considered the positions of the parties and the amici curiae, and having heard oral argument on June 17, 2013, the Court finds that plaintiffs satisfied their burden at this stage and preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Beckwith maintains that his ancestors arrived on the shores of America in 1626 to escape religious persecution in England. In 1967, Beckwith's mother and father started a family business in their garage in Illinois with financing provided by Beckwith's grandfather. From that beginning, the small, family-run start-up grew into what is now Beckwith Electric, a Florida corporation that employees 168 full-time employees to engineer, manufacture, and market micro-processor-based technology for the implementation and utilization of generators, transformers, and power lines. Today, Beckwith is the Chief Executive Officer and 92% shareholder of Beckwith Electric, which, although a secular, for-profit corporation, is operated according to and consistent with Beckwith's personal religious beliefs.

In both his personal and business endeavors, Beckwith “strive[s] to follow the teachings and values of the Southern Baptist” faith. (Dkt. 10). Beckwith believes that “a company managed under the living God's direction and by God's principles cannot engage in or promote activities that are contrary to such direction, principles, or moral compass.” Id. at ¶ 13. One such belief “prohibit[s] [him] from providing, participating in, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting emergency contraception, abortion, abortifacients, and any drugs, devices, and services that are capable of killing innocent human life.” Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. Consequently, according to Beckwith's religious beliefs, he asserts that he cannot direct the company, of which he is the chief executive and principal shareholder, to allocate its resources to providing emergency contraceptives or abortion-causing drugs or devices. Id.

Beckwith Electric further inculcates these religious beliefs in its corporate environment. Beckwith personally arranges for corporate chaplains to visit Beckwith Electric on a weekly basis to assist employees with “difficult issues of bereavement, marriage, children, finances, addictions, elder care, and other types of crises.” Id. at ¶ 17. Beckwith Electric also donates to various charities, both secular and religious, including New Life Solutions' Family Ministries, which is a “Christ-centered ministry offering hope, help, and healing for women, teens and families by promoting healthy lifestyle choices and relationships.” Id. at ¶ 20–22.

As a secular, for-profit corporation employing 168 full-time employees, Beckwith Electric is required to provide insurance coverage to his employees pursuant to regulations promulgated pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), and the Health Care and Education Act, Pub. L. 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029. Through its insurance carrier, Humana, Beckwith provides insurance coverage to its employees. Beckwith was under the mistaken belief that the Humana group policy provided to Beckwith Electric's employees did not provide coverage for FDA-defined emergency contraceptives. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. As it turns out, a Humana representative incorrectly informed Beckwith that his plan did not provide these services when in fact it may.¹Id. Beckwith is now faced with the decision to either provide an insurance plan that meets the “minimum essential coverage” requirements, namely the FDA-defined emergency contraceptives, pursuant to the mandate, or face significant fines for noncompliance. Because Beckwith Electric's plan year anniversary is June 1, 2013, the date by which compliance was mandated has since come and gone. Id. at ¶¶ 47–49.

As a result, plaintiffs instituted this action on March 12, 2013. (Dkt. 1). By mandating insurance coverage for FDA-approved emergency contraceptives in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs, plaintiffs allege the defendants are violating: their First Amendment free exercise rights (Counts I–III), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Count IV), the First Amendment freedom of speech (Count V), their First Amendment right of expressive association (Count VI), their religious freedom rights under the RFRA (Count VIII), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (Counts IX–XII). Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare the mandate unconstitutional, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement against plaintiffs, and to award costs, including attorneys' fees, for bringing this action.

Currently before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction filed on May 13, 2013, which is the same date plaintiffs effected service of process on the named defendants. (Dkts. 9, 10).² The government, of course, opposes plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. (Dkt. 24).

In addition to the positions presented by the parties, the Court has had the benefit of several amici curiae.³ With leave of this Court, the State of Florida, through the Office of the Attorney General, filed a brief supporting plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. (Dkt. 36). Also supporting Plaintiffs' position, a collective amici brief was filed by the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, Prison Fellowship Ministries, National Association of Evangelicals, Association of Christian Schools International, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, the C12 Group, and Christian Legal Society (collectively, “Religious Supporters”). (Dkt. 33). The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (collectively, “ACLU”) filed a collective amici brief in opposition to plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. (Dkt. 23).

ANALYSIS

Religious tolerance serves as an important foundational tenet in the governance of any society. A commonly misunderstood term, to “tolerate” does not mean with which to agree; it does not mean to understand; and, it most certainly does not mean to adopt a belief as one's own. By definition, to tolerate means “to recognize and respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without sharing them.” Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College Ed. 1980). The notion of religious tolerance has echoed the halls of our country's history for centuries. See Patrick Henry, Religious Tolerance, Stokes 1:311–12 (1766) (“A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country, and enabling our people to those necessarys [sic] among themselves, the purchase of which from abroad has so nearly ruined a colony, enjoying, from nature and time, the means of becoming the most prosperous on the continent.”); Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, Writings 2:352–53 (Nov. 20, 1772) (“As neither reason requires, nor religeon [sic] permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience ... [i]n regard to religeon [sic], mutual tolleration [sic] in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced ...”). This case tests whether the challenged federal laws are “true to the spirit of practical accommodation that has made the United States a Nation of unparalleled pluralism and religious tolerance.” See Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 130 S.Ct. 1803, 1821, 176 L.Ed.2d 634 (2010) (Alito, J., concurring in part).

The challenged statutory and regulatory provisions deal with the federally mandated provision of insurance coverage for, “with respect to women, such additional preventative care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–13(a)(4). The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) tasked the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) to determine the appropriate guidelines for the provision of “preventative care” for women. See Institute of Medicine, Clinical Preventative Services for Women: Closing the Gaps 2 (2011). As a result, targeted insurance plans must now include all FDA-approved emergency contraceptives.

There are exemptions to the ACA and the HHS mandate. First, any plan that is “grandfathered” need not comply. Among other things, in order to qualify for “grandfathered” status, a plan must not have made any changes since ...