Maybe it's time for a lawsuit against the Hobby Lobby owners -- personally.

[pnwmom]

A lawsuit by employees, but not against the corporation -- against the owners. Including all the individual owners, whoever they may be (probably some kids -- so much the better.)

Since the owners have decided to "pierce the corporate veil" and claim that their religious beliefs should be imposed, via their corporation, onto their employees,

then it is only fair that the employees who object to this, go through that now giant hole in the corporate veil and sue the owners personally.

What do you think?

It would be interesting at the very least to see the knots judges would get tied up in, trying to squirm out of this one.


http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/

3. The business community isn’t rooting for Hobby Lobby to win this one.

If the Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby and agrees that corporations are people with religious convictions, the ruling would basically destroy what’s known as the corporate veil (which means to treat a corporation as a distinct entity from its owners or shareholders) — a precedent that would have far-ranging consequences.

Which may explain why corporate America has been unusually quiet about the case. As David H. Gans recently noted at Slate, “Not one Fortune 500 company filed a brief in the case. Apart from a few isolated briefs from companies just like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the U.S. business community offered no support for the claim that secular, for-profit corporations are persons that can exercise religion.”

The Chamber of Commerce and other groups — which were falling over themselves to file amicus briefs in support of Citizens United — likely recognize that a ruling for the corporate right to the free exercise of religion would cause complete chaos, both in terms of corporate governance and market stability. By treating corporations as the same thing as their owners, a ruling in support of Hobby Lobby wouldn’t just pierce the corporate veil, it would effectively shred it and light it on fire.

Which is basically what a group of corporate and criminal law scholars had to say about the issue in a brief filed in opposition to Hobby Lobby:

SNIP

[quinnox]

1. They better have another job lined up, and not want to be an employee any more

The employees group would need to find a lawyer firm that would do it for free, because it would be very expensive, I imagine.

And I don't think the Hobby Lobby would hesitate to fire the employees who did a lawsuit. So, they better have another job lined up too.

[pnwmom]

3. Yes, it would have to be employees on the way out the door. n/t

[Travis_0004]

2. it would be thrown out

The court has made its ruling and determined that Hobby Loby can exempt certain coverage

Also business owners are protected from lawsuits. Since the corporation has the rules you must sue the corporation.

[pnwmom]

4. The corporate veil has been pierced. The lawyers can find a way to go back through that hole,

I'm sure.

Even if they lost, the employees would have put the owners through the trouble of defending themselves personally. No one likes being sued. And the convoluted reasoning of the court would be on display for everyone to see.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/

3. The business community isn’t rooting for Hobby Lobby to win this one.

If the Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby and agrees that corporations are people with religious convictions, the ruling would basically destroy what’s known as the corporate veil (which means to treat a corporation as a distinct entity from its owners or shareholders) — a precedent that would have far-ranging consequences.

Which may explain why corporate America has been unusually quiet about the case. As David H. Gans recently noted at Slate, “Not one Fortune 500 company filed a brief in the case. Apart from a few isolated briefs from companies just like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the U.S. business community offered no support for the claim that secular, for-profit corporations are persons that can exercise religion.”

The Chamber of Commerce and other groups — which were falling over themselves to file amicus briefs in support of Citizens United — likely recognize that a ruling for the corporate right to the free exercise of religion would cause complete chaos, both in terms of corporate governance and market stability. By treating corporations as the same thing as their owners, a ruling in support of Hobby Lobby wouldn’t just pierce the corporate veil, it would effectively shred it and light it on fire.

Which is basically what a group of corporate and criminal law scholars had to say about the issue in a brief filed in opposition to Hobby Lobby:

SNIP

[jberryhill]

9. So what?

What is it that the owners are doing which is unlawful?

[Rider3]

5. I like the idea

[Michigander_Life]

6. Agreed 100%

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

[jberryhill]

7. Not understanding the legal claim here

Sue them personally for conducting a business in a manner which the Supreme Court says is a legal manner of conducting business?

[pnwmom]

10. I've added to the OP. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways,

piercing the corporate veil when it suits them, and hiding behind it when it doesn't.

[jberryhill]

11. That's not really my question

Suing the owners of a close corporation is no big deal, but what I am missing in the excitement here is what it is you propose to sue them for doing.

For not providing contraception coverage in their employee's health insurance plans? In case you didn't notice the Supreme Court says that's legal.

What "legally wrong thing" is it you want the employees to sue them for doing?

[pnwmom]

12. The Supreme Court said it's legal for corporations.

Have they yet said it's legal for all other companies, or has that been just assumed?

[jberryhill]

13. It said it is legal for closely-held corporations

....precisely because, unlike public corporations, the point of maintaining a closely-held corporation is to more narrowly control the set of humans who control the corporation.

If you are suggesting the same suit should be brought by employees against the owners personally, the distinction made in the decision between closely-held corporations and public corporations becomes entirely unnecessary, and the result is the same, just simpler.

------
Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because it is difficult as a practical matter to ascertain the sincere “beliefs” of a corporation. HHS goes so far as to raise the specter of “divisive, polarizing proxy battles over the religious identity of large, publicly traded corporations such as IBM or General Electric.” Brief for HHS in No. 13–356, at 30.

These cases, however, do not involve publicly traded corporations, and it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims. HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. For example, the idea that unrelated shareholders— including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable. In any event, we have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA’s applicability to such companies. The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has
disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.
---------

If the suit were brought against the Green family, instead of the corporation, that whole passage becomes unnecessary, and the court could have simply cut to the chase of "yes, they can do that."

That's the entire point of the passage there.

Treating as just a family-owned business doesn't buy you anything in relation to this decision.

[bigtree]

8. makes sense, because the Court is treating them like a sole proprietorship

. . . no definition of a corporation includes religious belief, only individuals can hold those. There's no way to accurately define or measure that belief when applying it to a corporation. The court only recognizes 'corporate personhood' for the product of the collection of individual interests, not one prime individual.

That corporation is only recognized as a 'personhood' by the Court, and by the states which grant them that corporate status, to protect its interest in conducting business. Nothing about religious belief is even tangentially integral or necessary to conduct business.

[TheKentuckian]

14. I'm not clear on which grounds they would sue and under which jurisdiction.

I sense a reliance on the same broken institutions that brought us here, the fascist will patch up pierced veil and punt those bringing the case because they can. You are depending on something that isn't there, any level of judicial integrity, fairness, respect for precedent, and logical consistency.