Hartford Business Journal

www.HartfordBusiness.com • November 6, 2017 • Hartford Business Journal 9 FOCUS PDS has been meeting the needs of the construction industry since 1965. Our dedicated team of design and construction professionals welcomes the challenge of serving its past and future customers on their most demanding projects. AMF Property Management | Enfield, CT PDS Engineering & Construction served as Design Builder for the construction of a new three-story office facility for AMF Property Management Corporation, a full service real estate development and management company. Project Features: - Glass atrium - Sitework and concrete - Thermal and moisture protection - Acoustical ceilings and painting Total Project Size: 11,400 SF 107 Old Windsor Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002 (860) 242-8586 | Fax (860) 242-8587 www.pdsec.com DESIGN BUILDERS • GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS SPOTLIGHT ON: Commercial PDS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. THINK • PLAN • BUILD WINNERS FROM OUR PAST ClassES! Dr. Shelley Best Jody Ferrer Susan Herbst Jill Hummel Paddy LeShane Bonnie Malley Kristen Roberts Doris Sugarman Nancy Wheeler Teresa Younger NOMINATION DEADLINE: February 6th, 2018 ISSUE DATE: April 2nd, 2018 EVENT DATE: May 10th, 2018 LOOKING TO DISCOVER OUR NEXT CLASS 2018 NOMINATIONS NOW OPEN go to www.HartfordBusiness.com/ourevents, click on Women in Business to submit your nomination. Contact Amy Orsini at aorsini@hartfordbusiness.com or 860-236-9998 X134 with questions. Trump admin. allows employers to opt out of ACA's contraception mandate By Virginia E. McGarrity and Alisha N. Sullivan While the Republican-controlled Con- gress has tried and failed to repeal and replace the Aff ordable Care Act (ACA), the Trump Administration has continued its war on the ACA through a series of execu- tive orders and regulatory changes. Most recently, the U.S. departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued fi nal rules that im- mediately broaden exceptions to the ACA's contraceptive coverage mandate. The mandate requires birth control pills and other contraceptives to be covered by insurance as part of preventive care, at no cost to patients. The contraception mandate has been a controversial topic, heralded by many reli- gious organizations as a violation of their religious beliefs and it quickly resulted in numerous lawsuits. That litigation resulted in a closely divided Supreme Court ruling that said corporations with religious owners can't be required to pay insurance coverage for contraception. The fi nal rules recently released by the Trump administration greatly expand the contraception mandate exemption to employers who may claim to have a "moral conviction" against providing such cover- age. Organizations that may now claim either a religious or moral exemption include nonprofi t and for-profi t organizations, higher-education institutions that arrange for insurance for their students, individuals employed by companies open to providing a plan option that would not provide con- traceptive coverage, and health insurers. Publicly traded companies may also now claim a religious exemption, but not a moral conviction. Previously, there was also an accom- modation process available to religious organizations claiming an exemption. Under the accommodation, an eligible employer did not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer their employees for contracep- tive coverage. Instead, the religious employer notifi ed the insurer of their objection and the insur- er was then required to arrange for such coverage at no further cost to the employee or the objecting employer. This accommo- dation process will remain available to em- ployers seeking a religious exemption and is further expanded to companies seeking a moral exemption, and will be available on a strictly voluntary basis. It is important to note that under the new rule, employers are not required to notify employees of any religious or moral objection to providing contraception cov- erage. Executive orders This issue was revisited in response to several presidential executive orders. The fi rst one, executive order 13765, was issued on Jan. 20, and required that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and others take action to essentially delay the implementation or re- quirements of the Aff ordable Care Act that would impose a fi nancial burden on states, individuals, families, healthcare providers, or makers of medical devices, products or medication. Several months later, on May 4, Presi- dent Trump issued the Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty Order, which called for the federal departments to issue regulations that address conscience-based objections to contraceptives being con- sidered preventive care. The departments understood the order to include moral convictions, not just religious beliefs. While the new rules recognize the increase in lawsuits brought by religious organizations since the contraceptive mandate was put in place by the Aff ordable Care Act, they state that there is still some uncertainty with respect to how big an impact this change will have. By removing the religious element from the exemption, however, it is possible that the number of employers who claim an ex- emption from the requirement to provide contraception coverage will increase. It is important to note that the interim rules do not provide employers claiming an exemption based on moral convictions with a "blanket exemption"; in other words, employers who oppose certain types of contraception may only be exempt from not covering those methods and would still be subject to the contraceptive coverage mandate rules for other methods of contra- ception they do not claim an exemption for based on a moral conviction. As a result, employers seeking an exemp- tion under these rules may want to do so cau- tiously to avoid any potential lawsuits. Virginia E. McGarrity and Alisha N. Sullivan are lawyers at Hartford law rm Robinson & Cole. Alisha N. Sullivan Lawyer, Robinson & Cole Virginia E. McGarrity Lawyer, Robinson & Cole EXPERTS CORNER

• Cover