target, i barely knew thee
alas, it seems the hipster fav is pulling punches on us. this is the text of the email i just sent them in regards to a case mentioned in (among other places) dan savage's recent column in the onion (NOT work safe, scroll down):
It is absolutely disgraceful that your company allows your pharmacy employees to refrain from doing their jobs because of "religious" concerns. It is in no way a pharmacist's decision whether or not I have access to legal prescription birth control. That is between me and my doctor and no one else. Your pharmacists have no right to impose their so-called ethics on me for any reason, and the thought that they feel like they can and that your company policy reinforces that misguided view sickens me. I will not be shopping at a Target again until you put a stop to this shameful, harmful, and discriminatory policy.
considering i just finished reading larry kramer's book, the tragedy of today's gays, i'd say i showed considerable restraint in not peppering my email with exclamation points and frothing spittle.
posted by g @ 7:45 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
reposted, sans name:
ellie said...
Here's mine:
I am writing in response to the pharmacist refusing to fill a contraception prescription.
I believe Target's recent response is a misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In TWA v. Hardison, the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that require an employer to make reasonable accommodations to religious practices. The Supreme Court held that no accommodation is required that would force the employer to treat different employees differently, and no accommodation is required if it would impose anything other than a de minimis cost on the employer.
Here, the pharmacist claims the right to force other pharmacists to assume his responsibilities, which might, by itself go beyond what Title VII requires. But even if this burden on other employees is minimal, Target's policy also requires that the customer be directed to a competing pharmacy if no other employee is available. That forces Target to forego income and goodwill from the customer -- which is definitely beyond the scope of Title VII's commands.
Additionally, workers do not have a civil right to refuse to perform core functions of their job and Target has no obligation to hire anyone whose religious beliefs would prevent them from performing the required functions of the position. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over cases brought in Missouri) has said, "Title VII does not require an employer to allow an employee to impose his religious views on others." In Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., (1st Cir. 2004), the court held that Costco had no obligation to accommodate an employee whose religion required her to display her facial piercing while on duty. (The employee was a member of the Church of Body Modification.) The court found that allowing the employee to display her piercings would impose an undue hardship on Costco because it would conflict with Costco's goal of presenting a "neat, clean, and professional image."
If professional ethics and religious beliefs do not coincide, it is Target's responsibility to not hire, or to fire, the worker, not to allow them to behave unprofessionally.
Target is not following Title VII, but allowing religious extremists to deny legal prescriptions. My family will not shop at Target until Target acknowledges that pharmacists have no legal right to impose their beliefs on Target shoppers.
Post a Comment
<< Home