(a) Neither section 1557 nor this part shall be construed to apply a lesser standard for the protection of individuals from discrimination than the standards applied under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, or the regulations issued pursuant to those laws.
(b) Nothing in this part shall be construed to invalidate or limit the rights, remedies, procedures, or legal standards available under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
(c) Insofar as the application of any requirement under this part would violate applicable Federal protections for religious freedom and conscience, such application shall not be required. For example, 42 U.S.C. 18023 provides (among other things) that nothing in section 1557 shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
(d) Nothing in this part shall be construed to supersede State or local laws that provide additional protections against discrimination on any basis described in § 92.1.
Notes of Decisions
T. S. v. Heart of CarDon, LLC, 43 F.4th 737 (7th Cir. 2022).
“” 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b) (2021). By contrast, section 1557 applies only to the part of an entity’s operations that receives federal funding when the 2 For example, HHS initially interpreted “health program or activity” generally to include entities principally engaged in providing…”
Citizens Health Corp. v. Kathleen Sebelius, 725 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2013).
“” 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 . The grant award, the co-applicant agreement, and the regulations show beyond dispute that Health and Hospital was the sole grantee.”
Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (a). As relevant here, this regulatory action restricted the statute’s coverage to HHS programs administered under Title I of the ACA, as opposed to all of the agency’s health programs and activities (as provided by the 2016 Rule).”
Doe One v. CVS Health Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “22 23 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b) (emphasis added). 24 To state a claim under Section 1557, then, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that each 25 Defendant engages in a “health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal 26 financial assistance.”
Kadel v. Folwell (M.D.N.C. 2022).
· cites it 2× “37160 , 37244–45 (June 19, 2020) (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b), (c)). Its current interpretation expressly excludes “entit[ies] principally or otherwise engaged in the business of providing health insurance” from the definition of “health program or activity.”
Kadel v. Folwell (M.D.N.C. 2022).
· cites it 2× “37160 , 37244–45 (June 19, 2020) (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b), (c)). Its current interpretation expressly excludes “entit[ies] principally or otherwise engaged in the business of providing health insurance” from the definition of “health program or activity.”
Fain v. Crouch (S.D.W. Va 2021).
· cites it 2× “; 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b)-(c).1 Having construed Section 1 The regulation resulting from the 2020 Rule, 45 C.”
Henson v. Walker Cnty. (N.D. Ala. 2022).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 . Plaintiff has not alleged that the Walker County Sheriff’s Office operates a health program that receives Federal financial assistance.”
Vang v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (C.D. Ill. 2021).
“at 21 (citing 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (b)). Plaintiffs refute both regulations from the 2020 Rule on the basis that they are inconsistent with the ACA and congressional intent, therefore, they cannot protect Defendant from liability.”
North Dakota, State of v. Burwell (D.N.D. 2021).
“45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (a). That means some programs administered by, for example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention likely now fall outside Section 1557’s reach.”
Asapansa-Johnson Walker v. Azar II (E.D.N.Y 2020).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 92.3 (d). And while limiting the scope of sex discrimination was a key motivation for the rulemaking, the rules themselves address many topics and can “function sensibly” under the 2016 definition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.