f you haven't cracked open your copy of this month's Illinois Employment Law Letter, let me steer your attention to its article on Neil Noesen, a trailblazer among pharmacists. His innovation? He refuses to fill people's prescriptions for birth control. But it doesn't stop there. According to the Law Letter, Noesen had a "conscientious objection" to doing any work that might in any way bring him into contact with contraceptors, as people like Noesen like to call the rest of us. He felt his employer should accommodate his "do no work" position. Noesen's high "moral" standards and conservative "values" didn't keep him from dumping all his work on his colleagues. To help him keep up his intolerance of women and modern life, his co-workers were expected to do every part of his job for him and for no extra pay. Noesen, fortunately for him, works for Wal-Mart which likes to accommodate anyone against choice. But even Wal-Mart couldn't tolerate an extremist like Noesen.

It all started when, in 2004, the Wisconsin licensing authority required that Noesen notify employers of the services he won't perform. Also the licensing authority wanted to know what he would do to ensure that women could get their prescriptions filled at the pharmacy. Noeson informed Wal-Mart, his employer, that he wouldn't fill prescriptions for contraception but would comply with steps to ensure women's prescriptions would be filled by someone else on staff. His boss at Wal-Mart did everything he could to ensure Noesen's "religious beliefs" could be inflicted upon everyone else on the job. According to the Law Letter, his boss excused him from:

• filling prescriptions for birth control from customers or physicians;
• taking orders for birth control from customers or physicians;
• handing customers birth control medication; and
• performing checks on birth control orders.
  

His boss even made sure that birth control prescriptions were put in a separate bin lest Noesen have to touch them. He had someone else on staff available to fill orders and respond to customer questions about birth control. But according to the Law Letter this wasn't enough:

"Within a matter of days, Noesen refused to ensure that customers seeking contraception obtained assistance. For example, if he answered telephone calls from customers or physicians attempting to place orders for birth control, he put them on hold and refused to alert other pharmacy staff. Likewise, if a customer came to the counter with a birth control prescription, he walked away and refused to tell anyone that a customer needed assistance. (His boss) then suggested that Noesen assist only customers who weren't of childbearing age or only male customers, but he refused. He insisted that the only acceptable accommodation was to relieve him of all counter and telephone duties unless customers were first prescreened by some other employee to ensure that they weren't seeking birth control. (His boss) agreed that he and the pharmacy intern would assist all walk-in customers, but because of high caller volume, Noesen, like all other staff, would need to answer the telephones and refer callers with birth control issues to others. Noesen refused his work assignment with the modified accommodations, and Wal-Mart fired him. He refused to leave, began lecturing customers about the company's allegedly discriminatory practices, and had to be carried out by police."

Refusal policies would be fine as long as people also have the right to conscientiously object to working with a lunatic.