Attorneys Argue Religious Beliefs Do Not Justify Discrimination
MINNEAPOLIS — Attorneys representing Andrea Anderson, a woman who was denied emergency contraception in 2019, presented their case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Thursday. They argued that the pharmacist who refused to fill her prescription had discriminated against her based on her sex. However, George Badeaux, the pharmacist at Thrifty White in central Minnesota, maintained that his refusal was not a violation of state and federal law due to his religious beliefs.
Jury Ruling and Appeal
Last year, a jury ruled in favor of Badeaux, stating that he did not discriminate against Anderson. Despite this ruling, the jury awarded Anderson $25,000 for emotional harm, which she cannot collect as there was no finding of discrimination. In response, Gender Justice, an advocacy organization for gender equity, and other lawyers representing Anderson appealed the jury’s decision this year. They argue that the refusal to fill the prescription constituted pregnancy-related discrimination.
Legal Arguments
During the court proceedings, Anderson’s lawyer, Jess Braverman, asserted that Badeaux’s refusal to provide the prescribed drug, which is exclusively for women, amounted to sex-based discrimination. Braverman emphasized that Badeaux’s motives were irrelevant to the discrimination claim. However, Rory Gray, Badeaux’s attorney, argued that Badeaux’s actions were not classified as pregnancy discrimination under federal and state law. Gray stated that the focus should be on Badeaux’s motives, highlighting that the jury had found no evidence of discriminatory intent.
The Impact and Intent of Discrimination
Braverman countered Gray’s argument by asserting that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not require proof of intent to harm or stigmatize the individual. Instead, it focuses on whether equal access to goods and services was denied. Braverman argued that the court had misinstructed the jury by suggesting that discrimination required an intention to cause harm or shame. She emphasized that the uncontroverted testimony showed clear evidence of intent to discriminate.
Awaiting the Court’s Decision
The panel of three judges now has 90 days to rule on the appeal. This case comes at a time when access to emergency contraceptives and birth control has become a contentious issue following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to end constitutional protections for abortion. While some states have expanded access, others have imposed restrictions and enacted abortion bans. It is worth noting that several universities across the country have started offering emergency contraceptives in vending machines to address this growing concern.
Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues.