Two Minnesota-based pharmacists are suing Walgreens, alleging that the national drug store chain denied their requests for religious accommodations excusing them from having to dispense so-called gender-affirming medications.

One pharmacist, Rachel Scott, alleges she was fired by Walgreens, and the other, Dora Ig-Izevbekhai, alleges that her hours were sharply reduced.

A federal lawsuit filed by the Upper Midwest Law Center says the two pharmacists are “Bible believing” Christians. 

The two pharmacists say that for years, Walgreens granted them religious accommodations and allowed them to pass along prescriptions for certain medications and vaccinations to other pharmacists. However, their lawsuit alleges that in 2023, the company refused to grant them a religious accommodation so they would not have to provide gender-transition drugs.

Ms. Scott started working at Walgreens in 2015 and says she attends church regularly. The complaint states that she does not dispense abortion medication because she believes abortion is “murder and deeply sinful, and that she must not cooperate with or facilitate abortion.”

She also believes that “God created human beings as male and female to complement each other, that attempting to medically alter a person’s biological sex contradicts God’s design, and that she therefore must not cooperate with or facilitate such efforts.”

The complaint states that Ms. Scott will fill prescriptions if the intended purpose of the medication is “uncertain or ambiguous,” but if it is clear it is for an abortion or gender-affirming care, she will refuse. 

Ms. Ig-Izevbekhai believes that “each person’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and is therefore not to be defiled or destroyed,” and she says she does not “provide or sell alcoholic beverages or tobacco products to anyone.” She also refuses to dispense abortion medication or medication for gender-affirming care.

Ms. Scott says that on December 2, 2023, Walgreens told her that Minnesota law does not allow pharmacists to decline to dispense gender-transition drugs due to religious objections, and that unless she did so, she would lose her job. 

The lawsuit says that Ms. Scott refused to dispense the medication and lost her job on January 3, 2024.

Similarly, in December 2023, Ms. Ig-Izevbekhai was told that Walgreens would not grant her a religious accommodation. The company then shifted her to work “only in a part-time position training intern pharmacy students,” which the complaint says amounted to about one eight-hour day per week. 

The lawsuit states that the two pharmacists reached out to the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy for “clarification” on the issue.

“The Board confirmed that pharmacists in Minnesota are not required to fill prescriptions for drugs intended to cause abortions,” the lawsuit states. “As to religious objections to filling prescriptions for gender-transition drugs, however, the Board ultimately informed Dr. Scott that it ‘is unable to provide guidance on this issue’ but would evaluate it ‘on a case-by-case basis.’”

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that no Minnesota law requires pharmacists to dispense gender-transition drugs when it would violate their religious beliefs, or to rule that any law that does so is unconstitutional and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Ms. Ig-Izevbekhai is also seeking financial damages from Walgreens. 

Walgreens declined to comment. The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy did not respond to the Sun’s request for comment by the time of publication. 

The president of the Upper Midwest Law Center, Doug Seaton, said in a statement, “Pharmacists deserve to practice their profession without abandoning their faith.”

“The Board has placed these pharmacists — and many others — under threat of termination for following their conscience. This lawsuit protects their right to practice pharmacy consistent with deeply held religious beliefs,” Mr. Seaton said. 

In 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman who said she was discriminated against when a pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for emergency contraception. She said the closest alternative was at least an hour’s drive away.

However, Ms. Scott and Ms. Ig-Izevbekhai say that their situation is different, as there were other pharmacists available to fill  prescriptions in a timely manner, and that their objections would not have required patients to travel long distances to get their medication.