Two Minnesota Pharmacists Sue Walgreens Over Religious Objections

Two female pharmacists have sued their former employer, Walgreens Pharmacy, alleging that Walgreens took adverse employment action against them for refusing to fill prescriptions that conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Just the Facts

The pharmacists, Dora Ig-Izevbekhai and Rachel Scott, maintain that their religious beliefs precluded them from dispensing gender-affirming care or abortion medications. Both pharmacists had worked for Walgreens for many years.

Scott was hired in 2007 as a pharmacy technician and continued working for Walgreens after completing pharmacy school and passing her licensing exams. Ig-Izevbekhai was hired by Walgreens as a pharmacy technician and, in 1998 after graduating from pharmacy school and passing her licensing exams, she continued working for Walgreens as a pharmacist.

Both pharmacists had longstanding religious objections to dispensing certain medications, including abortion medications and gender-affirming treatments for transgender patients. Both pharmacists had a practice of handing off such prescriptions to other willing pharmacists in the store, and Walgreens informally accommodated this for numerous years. According to the pharmacists’ complaint, patients were rarely, if ever, inconvenienced.

In 2023, after returning from maternity leave, Scott asked Walgreens for a formal accommodation for her religious beliefs. Walgreens responded that Minnesota law does not allow pharmacists to decline to dispense gender-affirming medications on religious grounds, and denied her request. At the end of 2023, Walgreens informed Scott that unless she was willing to fill prescriptions for gender-affirming medications, she would not be scheduled to work in 2024. Scott declined, and her employment was terminated.

Similarly, pharmacist Ig-Izevbekhai asked for a religious accommodation and was told that the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy allows religious exemptions only for filling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortion medications, not for gender-affirming medications. Towards the end of 2023, Ig-Izevbekhai was told that unless she agreed to fill prescriptions for gender-affirming medication, she would not be scheduled for work in 2024. Since January 2024, Ig-Izevbakhai claims that Walgreens has only allowed her to work part-time or at locations that are too far from her home to commute.

Legal Issue

The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy has stated that pharmacists with religious objections are not required to fill prescriptions for abortion drugs. However, no such clarification has been made about gender-affirming medications.

What Are the Plaintiffs Seeking?

The pharmacists want the court to declare that Minnesota law permits Walgreens to offer religious accommodations for dispensing gender-affirming medications, the same way they are offered for abortion medications. In the alternative, they ask the court to declare that the regulations forcing them to dispense these medications are unconstitutional and violate their First and Fourteenth amendment rights. They also seek monetary damages, and pharmacist Ig-Izevbekhai asks to be reinstated to her previous position.

We will be following this case as it moves through the court system.

Reference

Rachel Scott and Dora Ig-Izevbekhai v the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy; Walgreens, co. No 25-3347. United States District Court District of Minnesota; 2025. https://www.umlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pharmacy-Filed-Complaint.pdf