• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Court: Religious hospitals not subject to Federal pension protections

Court: Religious hospitals not subject to Federal pension protections

June 5, 2017 by Michael Peabody

Supreme Court - DepositPhotos.com

The Supreme Court has ruled that per Congressional statute, employee pension plans of church-affiliated organizations, including hospitals, are not subject to federal solvency requirements that apply to secular organizations.

In a ruling released Monday, June 5, 2017, in Advocate Health Care Network et al. v. Stapleton,  the United States Supreme Court found that a pension plan maintained by a church-affiliated organization is a “church plan” that is exempted from federal regulations designed to ensure plan solvency and protect plan participants regardless of who established the plan.

In the 8-0 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) did not apply to three church-affiliated nonprofit hospitals that had been sued by employees who alleged that the pension plans were underfunded. The hospitals argued that ERISA did not apply because they were “church-affiliated” employers even though the pension plans themselves were not established by a church. Recently appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch was not appointed in time to be involved in the consideration of the case.

The lower District Courts had agreed with the employees, finding that ERISA applied because the plans that the hospitals used were not established by a church, but the Supreme Court reviewed the statute and found that the language of the statute did indicate that it would apply to “a plan established and maintain … by a church” a subsection added in 1980 broadened this to include “a plan maintained by [a principal-purpose] organization.” This means that even if the church did not establish the pension plan, the ERISA religious exemption also applies to the pension plans they maintain.

The statutory language describing this distinction is complex, or, as Justice Kagan wrote, “a mouthful, for lawyers and non-lawyers alike,” and she takes considerable effort to explain in plain English how the language in the statute works.

Essentially, any effort by employees to appeal to the federal ERISA law in order to ensure their retirement income is secure fails within the language of the statute.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes a concurring opinion, noting that she agrees that the language of the statute excludes church-affiliated programs from ERISA. But Justice Sotomayor also observes that “it was the failure of unregulated ‘church plans’ that spurred cases such as these.”

She notes that although church plans are exempt, large religious hospitals are competing with similar secular “companies that must bear the cost of complying with ERISA.”  She also notes that there have been considerable changes since Congress passed the 1980 amendment, and that “this current reality might prompt Congress to take a different path.”

Unless, or until, Congress changes the law, the pension plans of religious employers including hospitals are not subjected to federal solvency regulations.

Filed Under: Supreme Court

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

— Ronald Reagan

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0