On Wednesday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wal-Mart was not required to go as far as an employee pharmacist requested in accommodating his religious objections to filling birth-control prescriptions. In Noesen v. Medical Staffing Network, Inc., (No. 06-2831)(7th Cir., May 2, 2007), the court found that under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the accommodation sought by pharmacist Neil Noeson would impose an undue hardship on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart offered to permit Noesen to assist only male customers and women not of childbearing age. However, it insisted that he, like all other staff, needed to answer telephones. However, Noesen insisted that the only acceptable accommodation was to relieve him of all counter and telephone duties unless customers were first pre-screened by others to ensure that they were not seeking birth control.
The court also held that, insofar as Noesen had a claim against the state of Wisconsin, Title VII does not override the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]
UPDATE: The 7th Circuit's link to the opinion in this case has been unstable. It has been updated, but if it breaks again, search by case name or number here.
