Filing coincides with school shooting in which the suspect, who identified as transgender, left writings expressing regret over transitioning as a minor
On August 22, 2025, two Minnesota pharmacists filed a federal lawsuit against Walgreens and the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, claiming they were penalized for refusing to dispense gender-transition drugs and certain vaccines due to their religious beliefs. The lawsuit came the same week as a school shooting in Minneapolis in which 23-year-old Robin Westman, who identified as transgender, killed two people and injured several others at a Catholic school. According to police, Westman left behind handwritten notes and videos expressing regret over beginning a gender transition as a minor, saying he was “tired of being trans” (New York Post, Catholic News Agency).
The plaintiffs, Rachel Scott of Mahtomedi and Dora Ig-Izevbekhai of Woodbury, are both veteran pharmacists who worked for Walgreens for years. They state that for decades they were able to refer prescriptions or vaccine requests they objected to on religious grounds to other pharmacists without incident or delay. But Walgreens informed them in 2023 that such accommodations were no longer allowed under Minnesota law. Scott’s employment was ended in January 2024, while Ig-Izevbekhai’s hours were cut to part-time. She later obtained a Wisconsin license to continue working there, where Walgreens did allow such accommodations .
The pharmacists’ complaint argues that Minnesota law already permits exceptions when prescriptions cannot be filled for reasons such as insurance coverage, supply shortages, or professional judgment about a drug’s safety. They contend that refusing to extend similar accommodations for religious reasons violates the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The suit seeks reinstatement, damages for lost wages and reputational harm, and a declaration clarifying that Minnesota pharmacists are not legally required to dispense medications or vaccines that violate their religious convictions. The case has been assigned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Preliminary hearings are expected later this year.
This case raises two separate but related issues. The first is about workplace religious accommodation under Title VII. Federal law generally requires employers to try to work with employees who have sincere religious objections, as long as doing so does not create undue hardship on the business. The pharmacists claim that Walgreens could have continued the system of referrals, which had worked for decades, without causing delays for patients. Walgreens will likely argue that state law leaves no room for exceptions and that following the law itself is a business necessity.
The second issue is about the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy’s interpretation of its own rules. The pharmacists argue that the rules are being read too strictly. They point out that pharmacists often decline prescriptions for financial or professional reasons, such as reimbursement rates or doubts about safety. If non-religious exceptions are permitted, courts may decide it is unconstitutional to deny religious ones.
The timing of this filing, coming the same week as the Minneapolis school shooting, is noteworthy. The suspect’s writings about regretting a transition begun as a minor highlight the personal struggles that can surround gender identity. While the lawsuit is not about violent crime, it touches on the broader debate over gender-transition treatments and whether objections to them can be respected in professional settings.
Ultimately, the court will need to decide whether Walgreens and the state board were correct in treating religious objections differently from other exceptions. If the pharmacists succeed, it could open the door for broader religious accommodations in pharmacy practice. If not, it will affirm the current approach that pharmacists must dispense prescribed medications regardless of their personal beliefs.
The timing with the Minneapolis shooting underscores how different issues involving gender identity are colliding in courts and public life. In the shooting case, the suspect’s writings about regret highlight another legal area: whether minors who transition and later regret it may pursue claims against medical providers. Lawsuits of that kind have begun appearing in several states, often raising questions about informed consent and standards of care.
Ultimately, the pharmacists’ lawsuit will test whether professional regulations can override religious beliefs in dispensing medication. At the same time, the shooting case illustrates how courts may increasingly be asked to address legal responsibilities when medical decisions made in adolescence are later questioned by those who underwent them.
Tags: Walgreens lawsuit, Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, Minneapolis school shooting, religious accommodation, transgender healthcare
Link to pharmacists’ lawsuit: https://www.umlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pharmacy-Filed-Complaint.pdf
