ONE DECISION HELD THAT ENSURING FAIR COMPETITION MIGHT PROVIDE A POWERLIFTING EVENT SPONSOR WITH A VALID BUSINESS REASON TO EXCLUDE TRANSGENDER ATHLETES FROM COMPETING AGAINST WOMEN, THE OTHER DECISION HELD THAT A PHARMACIST’S CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO DISPENSING A BIRTH CONTROL PILL THAT COULD “END LIFE,” IS NO DEFENSE TO A CLAIM OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently decided two controversial cases that have garnered national attention from advocacy groups and touch on issues that have divided the nation. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the Court’s rationale for its decisions in two cases decided on the same day in March, appears somewhat inconsistent.  In one case the court overturned a transgender plaintiff’s win on summary judgment that found the defendants violated the MHRA by excluding a transgender athlete from competing in a women’s powerlifting event.  

In the other case the court overturned a jury verdict that had given the defendants a win at trial and dismissed a plaintiff’s claim that a pharmacist violated the MHRA by refusing to fill her prescription for “Ella,” an emergency contraception. In the first case the Court was willing to recognize that upholding fair competition in sport could provide a potentially lawful defense to an MHRA claim.  However, in the second case the Court was unwilling to recognize a viable defense based on a pharmacist’s conscientious objection to dispensing a contraceptive that could inhibit a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, based on his belief that life begins at conception and therefore, it could “end a life.”  

In both of these cases the Court was presented with numerous amicus, or “friend of the court” briefs filed by advocacy groups both near and far.  Appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court are expected since both cases involve the public discrimination and accommodation provisions of the same statute, the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  The State’s Supreme Court can expect to hear arguments from those challenging these decisions, calling out apparent discrepancies where “fair competition” in powerlifting competitions was arguably deemed more legitimate than a pharmacist’s opposition to “ending a life.” However, those who support the decisions will no doubt argue the court of appeals did not decide the relative legitimacy of one defense over another, rather, the court addressed defenses recognized by the MHRA itself.  In any case these are hot button issues that place Minnesota front and center in the national debate over abortion and transgender athletes competing in women’s’ and girls’ sports.   

In Cooper v. USA Powerlifting and USA Powerlifting Minnesota (decided March 18, 2024) the appellate court reversed a trial court summary judgment ruling that the defendants violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act’s public accommodations prohibition against sexual orientation and sex discrimination by excluding the plaintiff, a transgender athlete, from competing against women. While the court’s reversal was not an outright win for the defendants, it recognized that declining to allow the transgender athlete to compete against women based on the athlete’s “biological maleness,” could provide a legitimate business purpose defense (preventing unfair competition).  This decision sets the stage for the hotly debated issue of transgender athletes competing against women (or girls) to be appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  To read this decision, click here.

The other case, Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, et al., decided the same day as Cooper,  involved an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the defendants following a trial. The jury found the pharmacist and his employer not guilty of violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act by refusing to dispense an emergency pregnancy prevention pill that could inhibit a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The pharmacist prevailed at trial by arguing he was a “conscientious objector” based on his belief that life begins at conception.  However, in overturning the jury verdict and ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals extrapolated from the pharmacist’s rationale that he must have refused to issue the prescription on his belief that Anderson was or at least could be pregnant, which the Court deemed a cut-and-dried violation of the MHRA’s prohibition against pregnancy discrimination. This case might have raised more interesting legal issues such as those addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the Colorado baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, based on constitutional issues of free speech. However, the defense counsel never raised any constitutional issues in securing their favorable jury verdict.  To read this decision, click here.

Questions? Contact Jim by email or at (952)746-1700