Amy Berquist
Abstract
Conclusion
. . . The pharmaceutical industry will continue to create drugs to which some pharmacists object on religious grounds. Employers must anticipate that some pharmacists will object not only to birth control, but also to Ritalin, 226 Viagra for unmarried men, or drugs to treat AIDS; some pharmacists may even object on religious grounds to serving particular customers. The religious discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act allow most employers to dispense with the majority of possible religious accommodations for pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions on religious grounds. Those provisions are meaningless, however, if employers are reluctant to assert Title VII’s protections against accommodations imposing an undue hardship on the pharmacy’s business operations. As pharmacies negotiate the tensions between consumers demanding prompt access to prescription drugs, a tight labor market for pharmacists, pressure from certain religious groups to discourage the use of birth control, vocal national groups advocating expanded access to contraception, and their own economic bottom line, Title VII can serve either as an answer or as an excuse. Employers may use Title VII as a pretense to justify unnecessary accommodations for objecting pharmacists; pharmacies may attempt to use federal law to shield themselves from customer and activist criticism by asserting that they have no choice but to accommodate. On the other hand, pharmacies can utilize Title VII as a tool to define the outer limits of their pharmacist accommodation policies. A clear understanding of the parameters of Title VII’s religious accommodation requirements will help guide and monitor the behavior and legal justifications presented by employers, employees, and customers when pharmacists refuse to dispense certain drugs on religious grounds.
Berquist A. Pharmacist Refusals: Dispensing (With) Religious Accommodation Under Title VII. Minn Law Rev. 2006;90(4):1073-1106.