Dominos Pizza Founder Wont Have To Comply With Contraception Mandate, Judge Rules


The battle over the birth control benefit shows no sign of relenting with more federal courts apparently willing to temporarily block compliance with the law while the administration and faith leaders attempt to work out yet another compromise and as the judiciary struggles with the argument that corporations have religious exercise rights.

Thomas Monaghan, the billionaire founder of Domino’s Pizza is the latest to win a reprieve from the courts; late Sunday a federal judge blocked the mandate from applying to Monaghan and employees of Domino’s Farms Corp., a Michigan property management firm he operates.

“The (federal) government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest,” said Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, a 1986 Reagan appointee. “Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have established at least some likelihood of succeeding on the merits” of their claim.

The ruling comes just days after two federal appeals courts, one in Chicago and one in St. Louis became the first to rule against enforcement for businesses of the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Like the other challenges, Monaghan will continue to challenge the merits of the contraception mandate while the stay issued by the federal court prevents the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on Twitter: @hegemommy

To schedule an interview with Jessica Mason Pieklo please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • zeldavross

    This is outrageous!! This rich old man does not pay the insurance premiums the employees pay it!! To let the insurance coverage paid for by the employee be dictated by the employer is crazy and a violation of employees privacy. I bet he has no problem allowing Viagra to be included. This starts American women’s rights down a very slippery slope. I will NEVER spend one more dime at any establishment that supports this sick, stupid, arrogant, remnant of the dark ages policy.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Hope female employees sue him for criminal Munchausen by Proxy medical abuse!

  • dominos-pizza

    Domino’s founder Tom Monaghan sold the company in 1998 and today has no active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. Domino’s Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. This lawsuit does not involve Domino’s Pizza.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Perhaps you should run commercials denouncing medically unlicensed Monaghan for criminally pimping women’s wombs on behalf of pedophile priests.  You could word it more politely than me, but consumers need to hear the ugly truth about “Monsignor” Monaghan.

  • alisakura

    Is there an (accurate) list somewhere of all the companies that are are doing this? I want to boycott them.

  • cmarie

    I recently read an article (I think it was in the Boston Globe) by a man who, along with his wife had struggled through infirtility.  His arguement was that insurance companies should pay for couples to hire a surrogate to carry a pregnancy if the wife cannot.  I am adamently opposed to the use of anyone’s body or genetic material to deliberately conceive or carry a child who he/she has no intention of raising.  All I can think of is the scores of young women in India bullied by their husbands into serving as surrogates for Westeners so he can double the size of his house or take care of his parents.  I’d be furious if my insurance premiums or taxes were increased to pay for what I see as brutal exploitation of the poorest of the poor.  I’m sure there are at least some people here who agree with me.  I have no problem with my premiums or taxes paying for contraception but I draw the line at surrogacy.  I’m curious to see what others think.  I agree that refusing to support contraception is unreasonable, but is there ever a time, ever when is it reasonable to say.  “I’ll pay for my employees birth control but I will not pay for XYZ” (XYZ in my case being surrogacy).  I used to work for a health insurance company and I even remember dept managers wistfully dreaming about how nice it would be if we could take the money we provide for IVF (not likely to succeed) and instead let our members apply it towards adoption costs.  (Hmmm… I’d rather my money went towards helping the original family keep and raise their own child).  I’m not saying the Dominos founder makes sense.  I’m asking “is there ever an instance where limits on paying for reproductive technology does make sense and is it within reason, in fact, ethically necessary to withhold paying for certain services?”

  • ljean8080

    I not against it,There as people,such as Susan Smith,who have no business having kids.if a girl can not keep a baby and wants to give it to a loving adoptive family,i say more power to her.

  • cmarie

    Right… but is there ever a point where you as an employer might say “no…. this I will not pay for”

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Right… but is there ever a point where you as an employer might say “no…. this I will not pay for”

     

    Yes, that would be the “such-and-such form of medical coverage is not mandatory” point.

     

    As for what’s mandatory or not, that has to do with real-world, fact-based assessments. (Which is why religious fundamentalists find the prospect terrifying.) And the fact is, in the real world, pregnancy surrogacy has a lot of issues that need to be sussed out before people can even think about talking about the possibility that it might one day potentially be mandated in health coverage somewhere in the U.S.

  • cmarie

    well, “not mandadory” would probably include anything that deliberatly increases the liklihood of pregnancy.  Getting pregnant doesn’t improve your medical condition.  It complicates it. Certainly, it would mean no coverage for IVF. 

  • purplehope

    And when you think that the grad students are the ones that become these people. It’s sad that we always have to put our faith in the next generation. It’s just that we never now how good or bad it is going to get.

  • arekushieru

    No.  If we put limits on surrogacy in cases where women cannot get pregnant, then we limit women’s fertility, while not putting on hold the man’s own fertility.  That’s discrimination.  If both of them are infertile and the woman cannot sustain a pregnancy that is still prioritizing limits on her fertility, over the man’s.  Still discrimination.

  • arekushieru

    The grad students are also the ones who become the employees…?  So, not sure what you’re suggesting, here…?

  • Pingback: The 18 For-Profit Companies Fighting to Eliminate the Birth Control Benefit | RH Reality Check