Today I would like to give you an update on some of our active litigation:
Protecting Conscience Rights Against Planned Parenthood
We are representing two Illinois pharmacists who lost their jobs after Planned Parenthood targeted them for refusing to cooperate in the dispensing of abortifacient "morning-after pills." In Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation v. Bonnie Brown, we represent Bonnie Brown, an Illinois pharmacist who was fired after Planned Parenthood filed a complaint with her employer following Bonnie's assertion of a conscientious right to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill. (Bonnie did not turn away an actual customer or prescription; she simply told a Planned Parenthood nurse on the phone that she would not dispense the MAP). Planned Parenthood also filed a charge with the state Board of Pharmacy. The state is prosecuting her for "unprofessional conduct," seeking license suspension and heavy fines. We have a court appearance scheduled for February 5, 2007, in Chicago and are preparing for a trial this spring.
We also filed suit last month on behalf of Ethan Vandersand, another Illinois pharmacist who was fired at the behest of Planned Parenthood. Vandersand worked for Walmart and was fired the day after Planned Parenthood complained to his employer about his conscientious refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. We have sued Walmart in Vandersand v. Walmart, claiming they violated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII by caving into Planned Parenthood over this issue without even attempting to honor Vandersand's objection to participating in activity that violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Planned Parenthood has made a national priority the targeting of pharmacists and other health care workers who simply want to exercise their right to choose not to participate in morally objectionable procedures.
Other Conscience Cases Pending
We currently represent eleven pharmacists and one nurse in Illinois and Missouri in seven distinct pieces of litigation in the state and federal courts of those states. All of these cases involve health care professionals who face discrimination, loss of jobs and/or licenses because of their unwillingness to participate in health care services that violate their religious and moral principles. The following cases are all ongoing:
Menges, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al., U.S.D.C., C.D. Illinois, Case No. 05-3307
(7 plaintiffs)
Menges, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al., Cir. Ct., Sangamon Cty., Illinois, Case No. 6-MR-242 (7 plaintiffs)
Quayle, et al. v. Walgreen, Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., Case No. 06-L-93 (4 plaintiffs)
Morr-Fitz, et al. V. Blagojevich, Court of Appeals, Illinois, Case No. 2005-CH-495 (2 plaintiffs)
Nead v. EIU, U.S.D.C., C.D. Ill., Case No. 05-2137
Williams v. Target, EEOC, St. Louis, Case No. 560-06-348
Antuma v. Walgreen, EEOC Chicago, Case No. 440-06-841
Protecting the Public Display of the Ten Commandments
We are awaiting decisions from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on two appeals I argued on November 15th involving displays of the Ten Commandments in two cities in Utah. In one of those cases, Summum v. City of Pleasant Grove, discovery is ongoing in the trial court (the appeal was from a denial of a preliminary injunction). Trial is scheduled for September 4, 2007, in Salt Lake City.
We expect to hear any day now from the U.S. District Court in Lexington, Kentucky in our case involving a "Foundations of American Law and Government" display (including the Ten Commandments) being attacked by the ACLU. We filed a motion for summary judgment in November.
Protecting the Rights of Pastors and Churches
In Oginni v. Beverly Hills, Missouri, we represent a St. Louis-area pastor who was arrested for "conducting business/service without proper license (church service.)" Discovery is underway with a trial scheduled for February 2008.