Anderson v. Aitkin Pharm. Servs.

• Docket Number: A23-0374,A23-0484
• Decision Date: 18 March 2024
• Citation: Anderson v. Aitkin Pharm. Servs., A23-0374, A23-0484 (Minn. App. Mar 18, 2024)
• Parties: Andrea Anderson, Appellant, v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC dba Thrifty White Pharmacy, Respondent, George Badeaux, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

1

Andrea Anderson, Appellant, v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC dba Thrifty White Pharmacy, Respondent, George Badeaux, Respondent.

Nos. A23-0374, A23-0484

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 18, 2024

Cochran, Judge Aitkin County District Court FileNo 01-CV-19-1198

Jess Braverman, Christy L. Hall, Gender Justice, St. Paul Minnesota; and Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Ranelle Leier, Fox Rothschild LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondentAitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC dba Thrifty White Pharmacy)

Charles Shreffler, Shreffler Law Ltd., Lakeville, Minnesota; and Rory T. Gray(pro hac vice), Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, Georgia (for respondentGeorge Badeaux)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Elizabeth Johnston, Rachel Bell-Munger, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Liz Kramer, Solicitor General, Anna Veit-Carter, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Attorney General)Ava Marie M. Cavaco, Nigh Goldenberg Raso &Vaughn, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae National Women's Law Center)

Brian T. Rochel, Kitzer Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Christopher J. Moreland, MJSB Employment Justice, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Laura A. Farley, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association)

Celeste E. Culberth, Leslie L. Lienemann, Culberth and Lienemann, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Employee Lawyers Association of the Upper Midwest)

Katherine S. Barrett Wiik, Saul Ewing LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Amy E. Edwall, Michelina C. Lucia, Standpoint, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Standpoint)

James V.F. Dickey, Douglas P. Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Upper Midwest Law Center)

Jason Adkins, Minnesota Catholic Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Catholic Conference)

Renee K. Carlson, True North Legal, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amici curiae Minnesota Family Council and True North Legal)

SYLLABUS

1.A pharmacist engages in business discrimination within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 363A.17(3)(2018), when the pharmacist intentionally refuses to dispense a valid prescription for emergency contraception to a customer because the medication may interfere with a pregnancy.

2.A district court errs by instructing a jury that the plaintiff must show a "material disadvantage" or "tangible change in conditions" to succeed on a public-accommodations claim under Minnesota Statutes section 363A.11(2018).

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.

OPINION

COCHRAN, Judge

A woman brought sex-discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01-.50(2018),^[1] against a pharmacy and one of its pharmacists after the pharmacist called her and informed her that he would not dispense her prescription for emergency contraception.At trial, the pharmacist asserted that he refused to dispense emergency contraception based on his conscientious objection, but neither the pharmacist nor the pharmacy asserted a constitutional defense.Following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, the district court denied the woman's posttrial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and entered judgments for the pharmacy and the pharmacist on each of the woman's claims: business discrimination against the pharmacy and pharmacist; public-accommodations discrimination against the pharmacy; and aiding and abetting violations of the MHRA against the pharmacist.

We conclude that the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law on the woman's business-discrimination claim against the pharmacist.We also conclude that the district court erred in denying a new trial for the woman's public-accommodations claim against the pharmacy and the related aiding-and-abetting claim against the pharmacist.But we conclude that the district court did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the woman's business-discrimination claim against the pharmacy.We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

This lawsuit arises from appellantAndrea Anderson's attempt to obtain emergencycontraception medication from respondent Aitkin Pharmacy^[2] and from the refusal of respondentGeorge Badeaux-Aitkin Pharmacy's pharmacist-in-charge-to dispense that medication.The following facts are based on the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.

Anderson's Attempt to Obtain Emergency Contraception

On January 21, 2019, Anderson obtained a valid prescription for a medication called ella, a type of emergency contraception available only by prescription.The prescription was sent to Aitkin Pharmacy's store in McGregor, where Anderson lived.Anderson called the pharmacy and spoke with a pharmacy technician.The technician informed Anderson that the pharmacy did not have ella in stock, but the pharmacy would order ella to fill her prescription.

Badeaux the pharmacist on duty on January 21, learned about Anderson's prescription for ella.Unfamiliar with ella, Badeaux reviewed its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label, which describes a medication's mechanisms of action.According to the label, ella is a medication "for prevention of pregnancy" that works by either (1) preventing the release of an egg from an ovary or (2) inhibiting the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus.Badeaux does not refuse to dispense medication that operates by the first mechanism.However, Badeaux refuses to dispense any emergency contraception, including ella, that works by inhibiting the implantation of a fertilized egg because doing so may cause the fertilized egg to "die," meaning a "new life will cease to exist."Badeaux considers his refusal to dispense emergency contraception to be a "conscientious objection."

Badeaux was scheduled to work the next day, January 22, when Anderson planned to pick up the prescription.Another pharmacist was also scheduled to work that day.Badeaux knew that the other pharmacist was willing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.But Badeaux also knew that there was a possibility of a snowstorm the next day that might make it difficult for the other pharmacist to make it to work.

Because of the weather forecast, Badeaux called Anderson to inform her of the situation.During the call, Badeaux told Anderson that the pharmacy had received her prescription for ella.He also told her that he"was not willing to participate in the dispensing of the prescription" due to "[his] beliefs."Badeaux informed Anderson that another pharmacist was scheduled to work on January 22 who was willing to dispense the prescription, but the other pharmacist might not make it in to work because of the forecasted storm.When Anderson asked what she should do, Badeaux said she could have her prescription filled at a pharmacy in Aitkin but that she might "run into trouble" at the Shopko there.Anderson became angry with Badeaux and hung up before Badeaux finished discussing Anderson's options for obtaining her prescription.Badeaux did not make any changes to Aitkin Pharmacy's order for ella at that time.Nor did Badeaux tell Anderson that she could not get her prescription filled by Aitkin Pharmacy.

After her conversation with Badeaux, Anderson called other nearby pharmacies to see if she could transfer her prescription.After Anderson learned that she could not fill the prescription at CVS-the only pharmacy, other than Shopko, that she was aware of in Aitkin-Anderson called the Walgreens in Brainerd, which was located more than an hour away from her house.The Walgreens employee told her that the prescription could be ordered and would be available the next day, and Anderson transferred her prescription.Badeaux participated in the transfer of the prescription and then removed ella from Aitkin Pharmacy's order.The next day, January 22, Anderson drove to Brainerd and obtained her prescription.The other Aitkin Pharmacy pharmacist-who would have dispensed Anderson's prescription-also showed up to work on January 22.

Aitkin Pharmacy's Plan for Dispensing Emergency Contraception

Aitkin Pharmacy has a plan for dispensing emergency contraception to customers, which was developed in 2015 in response to Badeaux's refusal to dispense emergency contraception.Aitkin Pharmacy's owner first learned about Badeaux's refusal to dispense emergency contraception in 2015, after Badeaux refused to dispense Plan B (another type of emergency contraception) to a woman seeking the medication.Badeaux informed the woman about his beliefs about emergency contraception, and she changed her mind about obtaining the medication.The customer's mother complained to Aitkin Pharmacy's owner.

After the complaint, Badeaux and Aitkin Pharmacy's owner verbally agreed to a plan for dispensing emergency contraception when Badeaux was working whereby either (1) another pharmacist would come in to fill the prescription the same day or the next day or (2) the prescription would be transferred elsewhere.The owner told Badeaux that he wanted the prescriptions to be filled at Aitkin Pharmacy.He also knew that Badeaux would continue to refuse to dispense emergency contraception.The record reflects that Aitkin Pharmacy dispensed emergency contraception while Badeaux was employed as the...