Supreme Court orders new look at challenge to health-care law

— The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that the health-care law championed by President Barack Obama violates the school’s religious freedoms.

The court’s action meansthe 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.

A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature, and never dealt with thesubstance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the healthcare law in June.

The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health-care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty’s.

The school made a new filing with the high court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of that court’s decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

Liberty law school Dean Mathew Staver said, “This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals, where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address.”

When Liberty’s case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. However, Davis said of Liberty’s claims, “I would further hold that each of appellants’ challenges to the act lacks merit.”

The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of theSupreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.

Liberty’s case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over the health-care overhaul, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception. The cases are working their way through the federal court system.

The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.

Also on Monday, the high court heard arguments on an appeal by Maetta Vance, a black Ball State University catering worker, who is seeking to revive her racial harassment claim against the school. At issue is whether the alleged harasser was Vance’s supervisor, a status that would make it easier for the worker to win her case.

Employers are generally liable for racial and sexual harassment by supervisors. Workers f ile more than 30,000 formal harassment complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year.

The hour-long session produced little disagreement on the question. Both sides, as well as the Obama administration, said a federal appeals court used the wrong legal standard in throwing out Vance’s lawsuit on the grounds that the alleged harasser wasn’t a supervisor.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that, to be a supervisor, a co-worker must have the authority to “directly affect the terms and conditions” of employment, such as having the power to hire, fire, demote or transfer employees.

Vance, Ball State and the Obama administration all said the lower-court test was too limited and a supervisor could also be someone with power to direct an employee’s daily work activities.

Ball State’s lawyer, Gregory Garre, said such an alternative test made sense in a modern workplace, where “jobs are less hierarchical,more collaborative.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said the alternative test might prove unworkable. He questioned whether it would include a workplace in which the senior employee was allowed to select the music and then threatened to play country songs unless a co-worker agreed to date him.

Justice Samuel Alito later asked about a hypothetical employee given the authority to assign work space, including an office with no heating or air conditioning.

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employer can be held liable if a supervisor discriminates against an employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Vance sued Ball State alleging that a co-worker in the Muncie, Ind., university’s banquet and catering department had slapped her, threatened her and referred to her using racial epithets.

The advocates spent much of their time debating whether the co-worker, Saundra Davis, had authority to direct Vance’s day-to-day activities. Garre contended that Davis didn’t have that authority because other people, including the chef, made the daily work assignments.

Vance’s attorney, Daniel Ortiz, said his client should be given a new chance to gather evidence.

The case is Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556.

Information for this article was contributed by Mark Sherman and Brock Vergakis of The Associated Press and by Greg Stohr and Bob Drummond of Bloomberg News.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 11/27/2012

Upcoming Events