The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a Wal-Mart pharmacist who refused to even answer phones for fear the caller would ask for contraceptives was too demanding, LifeNews reported.
When Neil Noeson applied for the pharmacist position at Wal-Mart, the company agreed to accommodate his religious objection to filling prescriptions for contraceptives. The company even offered to allow Noesen to only interact with male customers and women who were unlikely to request birth control.
After starting the job, he then demanded that he not be required to answer the phone, because the caller might ask him to fill a prescription for a contraceptive.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the bottom line is that the court's decision was reasonable.
"The pharmacist was given every possible accommodation he asked for before he started the job," he said. "The federal anti-discrimination law requires only 'reasonable accommodation' of an employee's religious beliefs."
What the case highlights, Hausknecht said, is the tension between reasonable accommodation and an employer's need to run a business.
An accommodation is reasonable, he added, if the company can accomplish what the employee is requesting with minimal or no cost and without a major disruption to the company's operations.
"While employees should not be afraid to ask for accommodations relating to the exercise of their faith – such as Sundays off to go to church," Hausknecht said, "they should also act reasonably and work with their employer in order to reach an accommodation that works for both parties."
