Target, pharmacist malpractice, and the law
The retail giant Target is now claiming that the Civil Rights Act requires the store's pharmacies to indulge theological eccentricities of pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.
As Scott Lemieux explains at LGM, the Civil Rights Act requires no such thing:
As The Supreme Court has interpreted it, the CRA requires employers to make only de minimis accommodations; employers are not, of course, required to make accommodations that would impose a hardship on their business. THF makes a useful distinction between a policy that if multiple pharmacists are on duty the one without moral objections fulfill the prescription--which is reasonable and does not affect the business significantly--with a policy that will force customers to go elsewhere, which obviously is not. And, of course, this is pretty obvious; you will not be surprised to find out that, say, companies that test shellfish recipes are not, in fact, legally forced to provide no-show jobs for Orthodox Jews. Again, you do not have a civil right to refuse to perform core functions of your job, and if the CRA were interpreted the way Target claims to it would be self-evidently unworkable.