WUNRN
Case Judgment:
Case Summary:
|
Medical Practitioners'
Right to Religious Freedom Does Not Override Compliance With
Non-Discrimination Law, Says US California Court - Gender Case |
|
|
|
London, 3 September 2008 |
|
On 18 August 2008, the Supreme Court of California, in the case
of North Coast Women's Care Medical Care Group, Inc., et al., v. San Diego
County Superior Court, S 142892. Ct. App. 4/1 D045438, rejected the
argument that the right to religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed
by both federal and state law, exempted a medical clinic's physicians from
complying with the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation set out in the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Act). The case involved an attempt by the plaintiff Ms. Benitez, a
lesbian, to become pregnant. Following a number of unsuccessful attempts, Ms.
Benitez and her partner met with physicians from the North Coast Women's Care
Medical Care Group, who indicated that at some point, if other methods proved
unsuccessful, a procedure known as intrauterine insemination (IUI) might have
to be considered. Following unsuccessful attempts by alternative methods to
become pregnant, Ms. Benitez decided to undergo the IUI treatment. However,
the physicians qualified to carry out the treatment refused to treat her on
the basis of religious objection. During the trial court proceedings Ms. Benitez successfully
motioned for a summary adjudication (a court order ruling that certain
factual issues are already determined prior to trial) of an affirmative
defence (a defence in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if
found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability) put forward by
the North Coast Women's Care Medical Care Group. The result of the motion
determined that the defendant's contention that their medical practitioners
were exempt from the requirements of the Act on grounds of religious freedom
lacked any basis in law. This motion was set aside by the Court of Appeal. Examining the issue, the Supreme Court of California ruled that:
"[U]nder the United States Supreme Court's most recent
holdings, a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an
exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground
that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector's religious
beliefs." It then went on to confirm the correctness of the trial court's
initial judgment stating: "The trial court's ruling simply narrowed the issues in
this case by disposing of defendants' contention that their constitutional
rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion exempt them from
complying with the Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against sexual
orientation discrimination. In concluding to the contrary, the Court of
Appeal erred." The judgment is important in that it illuminates an aspect of
the complex relationship between anti-discrimination norms of general
applicability and civil liberties. |
================================================================
To contact the list administrator, or to leave the list, send an email to: wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com.
Thank you.