In Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, (MN App., March 18, 2024), a Minnesota state appellate court held that a pharmacist violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act that prohibits intentionally refusing to do business with a person because of the person's sex. The pharmacist refused to dispense plaintiff's prescription for the emergency contraceptive ella because of his conscientious objection to dispensing any medication that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. The statute defines sex discrimination as including discrimination because of pregnancy. The court said in part:
Badeaux refused to dispense Anderson’s valid prescription because Badeaux believed she may have been pregnant. Thus, pregnancy was a substantial causative factor in Badeaux’s refusal to dispense ella....
Badeaux did not assert a constitutional defense in district court and does not argue that the MHRA actually violates his constitutional rights. Instead, he argues on appeal that the sex-discrimination language in the MHRA should be interpreted to avoid a constitutional conflict.... But we do not apply the constitutional-avoidance canon to a party’s proposed interpretation of a statute if the interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the statute.
The court however refused to reverse the jury's finding that the Pharmacy, as opposed to the individual pharmacist, did not violate the sex discrimination ban. The court said in part:
The evidence shows that Aitkin Pharmacy wanted to fill all valid prescriptions and had a pharmacist on staff who was willing to dispense emergency contraception. The evidence also shows that, when Badeaux called Anderson on January 21, he communicated both that he was unwilling to dispense ella and that there was another pharmacist scheduled to work who was willing to dispense her prescription.... [T]here is a reasonable theory of the evidence to support the verdict that Aitkin Pharmacy did not intentionally refuse to do business with Anderson...
The court also concluded that, because of erroneous jury instructions, plaintiff should have been granted a new trial on her claim that the pharmacy violated the state's public accommodation law that bans denial of the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services in places of public accommodation because of sex. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]
