Replies

Here's the link to that complete story:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F66D4B9D4D4E342E8625710300039083?OpenDocument

Apparently she was fired because she refused to accept Target Corp.'s requirements to refer customers if the Target store didn't stock that medication. There it is. She can find another job at a pharmacy that doesn't have that requirement. You work for someone on their terms, not yours.

Target required its pharmacists to sign a "conscience policy" — in which they agreed to fill or refer such prescriptions. Williams balked. In her refusal letter to Target, dated Dec. 1, Williams explained that because of the referral requirement, "I would be required to do almost everything except count the pills." On Dec. 21, she said that Target's district pharmacy officials reluctantly told her that her refusal to sign was forcing them to let her go.

Thanks for that link. From what is written there, it seems her refusal to sign the required letter is the reason she was terminated. In which case, Target seems to have taken appropriate action as an employer -- although they might also have allowed her not to sign it, is the issue apparently to the attorney, based upon her religious beliefs. I can understand her perspective but as to an employer, it appears they exercised a privilege of employer as to who they opted to employ, or, in this case, not to. Her religious beliefs, however...I dunno, not an attorney but I can see how there'd be at least cause to sue as to the nature of this drug. And her exercising her conscience in refusing to sign the letter. It's understandable but I don't know to what degree it is to also not fire her for that.