In North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (2008) ___ Cal.4th ___ (S142892), the California Supreme Court addressed whether freedom of religion found in the First Amendment could shield a doctor from discrimination. The Court held that the first amendment is not a shield to discrimination. While this is not an employment case, it deals with discrimination and may have some relevance to employment cases down the road.
Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian woman, sought to become pregnant. After several personal attempts were unsuccessful she was referred to North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. for fertility treatment. While at North Coast, Benitez was treated by Dr. Christine Brody. Dr. Brody initially treated Benitez for infertility with prescriptions of an ovulation medicine. After this treatment failed, Benitez decided to try intrauterine insemination (IUI). An IUI involves threading a catheter through the patient’s cervix and inserting semen through the catheter directly into the patient’s uterus. Dr. Brody refused to perform this procedure on Benitez because Dr. Brody’s religious beliefs precluded her from performing this procedure on a lesbian woman. Benitez sought treatment elsewhere and then brought a claim of discrimination under the Unruh Act. Civil Code, §51
The Unruh Act requires business establishments to provide, “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privilege, or services” to all persons notwithstanding their sexual orientation. Medical groups that provide services to the public are considered “business establishments” under the Unruh Act. Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 362. [to see this link, you must create a free FindLaw account].
North Coast claimed an affirmative defense based upon the Freedom of Religion contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1,Section 4 of the California Constitution.
Guadalupe filed a motion for summary adjudication of this affirmative defense. The case reached the Supreme Court of California after the trial court granted Guadalupe’s motion, and the court of appeals overturned that grant. The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that doctors could not invoke religion to refuse to treat homosexual patients and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication.
The Court in North Coast followed the US Supreme Court opinions of Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. V. Smith (1990) 494 U.S. 872 and Church of Lukumi Bablau Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993) 508 U.S. 520 in holding that the Unruh Act was valid and that the Defendant did not have a federal constitutional right to an exemption based on religion. These US Supreme Court cases held that a law that is “neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” The Court also noted that California had followed this practice in the case of Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 527.
Likewise, the Court found that the Unruh Act did not violate the California Constitution, and that even if this Act were judged under strict scrutiny, the Unruh Act furthered a compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation, and there are no less restrictive means for the state to achieve that goal.
--Michael Sachs
Comments