Can anyone revised entire in a different wayjQuery20006090628679622116_1519921279671 PLEASE Workplace Religious Discrimination It is often difficult

Can anyone revised entire in a different wayjQuery20006090628679622116_1519921279671 PLEASE

Workplace Religious Discrimination

It is often difficult for employers to separate their employees' religious beliefs from work activities. This is because as an employer, you will have to be able to job as well as respect the beliefs and religious values of your employees. There are many cases where an employer has struggled with such a situation. The Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich is a case where the employer struggled with respecting the religious beliefs of the employees. 

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich

The Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich case resulted in the Illinois state government imposing a policy that made it mandatory for pharmacists to sell emergency over-the-counter contraceptives. These contraceptives include both the "morning after" and the "week after" pills. This ruling was troublesome for both Glenn Kosirog and Luke Vander Bleek, because their religious beliefs about products such as emergency contraceptives, contradicted the court's ruling (The Becket Fund, 2012). However, the Illinois state Governor Rod Blagojevich was of the belief that this policy would help to alleviate the moral judgment of pharmacists who fill prescriptions. Governor Blagojevich also thought that if there was an issue with a pharmacist concerning emergency contraceptives, then perhaps that individual should not be working as a pharmacist.       The Case

The plaintiffs in the Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich case are all three licensed pharmacists who were also the owner-operators of pharmacies in the state of Illinois, when the policy was put into place, stating that their pharmacies would make emergency contraceptives available. The pharmacy owners filed for a declaratory judgment in the Sangamon County Circuit Court to have the policy removed. According to the policy, if there is a valid prescription for the emergency contraceptives, then the pharmacy is required to fill the prescription. If the medication is unavailable at the time the prescription is presented, then the patient must order their medication. (68 Ill. Adm. Code §1330.91(j) (2005). The plaintiffs in this case, claimed that the order violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Religious Freedom Act) (775 ILCS 35/1 et seq.), as well as the Health Care Right of Conscience Act (Conscience Act or Act) (745 ILCS 70/1 et seq.) (Alliance Alert, 2008). The plaintiffs also claimed that their first amendment rights of the United States Constitution were violated by this order. Because the plaintiffs believed that the use of emergency contraceptives is abortifacient, they asserted that the policy conflicted with their religious and moral beliefs.

The complaint of the pharmacy owners was dismissed by the circuit appellate court with prejudice in accordance with Illinois ruling 371 Ill. App. 3d 1175. This was due to the plaintiffs' failure to utilize administrative remedies, standing and ripeness. An acknowledgment was made to the plaintiffs about the legality of their case, stating that the clams were in fact legal. However, when it boiled down to the merits of the Conscience Act where defendants to do not have to respond in regard to the allegations, they were of the belief that the role was not consistent. The plaintiffs did file for a temporary restraining order but it was denied. The complaint was dismissed by the circuit court, with prejudice on the grounds of failure to use all administrative remedies, standing and ripeness. A divided appellate court declared, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1175 (Alliance Alert, 2008). They have allowed the petition for leave to appeal by the plaintiffs, 210 Ill. 2d R. 315 (Alliance Alert, 2008). The reasons below are the reasons for the reversal of the judgment of the appellate court. There was not an interlocutory appeal form filed under rule 307(a) or (d) (188 Ill. 2d Rs. 307(a), (d) (Alliance Alert, 2008). Therefore the case was not considered the property of the review court. The plaintiffs' move for preliminary injunction was not ruled on because the court had already put in the motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, due to justifiable reasons.   

The court's decisions in the above mentioned case are indicative of the fact that the court did believe that the plaintiffs had legal claims that were in fact, ripe. However, the plaintiffs had not depleted the administrative remedies. The legal battle lasted for over six years and in the end, the Illinois state court made a decision that struck down the state law mandating that pharmacy owners should dispense emergency contraceptives including the morning-after and week-after pill,s even if this action is against their religious beliefs.