In 2017, a transgender man, Evan Minton, was scheduled to have a hysterectomy at Mercy San Juan Medical Center: a hospital within the Dignity Health chain in California. Minton was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is considered to be a serious medical condition by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The surgery was suddenly cancelled, however, after the hospital learned Minton was transgender. Dignity Health claims that this cancellation was due to the organization's religious purposes. On April 18, 2019, Minton along with several organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ people, filed for a lawsuit against Dignity Health, claiming that they denied medical care based on the patient’s gender identity. Their lawsuit ultimately amounted to sex discrimination against Minton.
Minton stated, “I had no idea prior to this that my local, community hospital was a Catholic hospital, or that they would argue that religious doctrine permits them to prevent doctors from providing patients with the care they need just because those patients are transgender." Minton's doctor at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Dr. Dawson, stated that this incident was the first time the hospital has prevented her from performing this surgery. Dignity Health, however, was open to sending Minton to another hospital to perform his surgery for him.
The lawsuit, filed in the state court of California, alleges that Dignity Health’s cancellation of Minton’s hysterectomy violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits businesses from discrimination based on sex. This includes gender identity. The San Francisco Superior Court dismissed the case, and Mr. Minton appealed. In September of 2019, however, the Court reversed Minton's dismissal, giving the lawsuit the ability to proceed in the appellate court. Two months later in December, the Supreme Court of California denied Dignity’s petition for review.
However, it can be argued that since the Unruh Rights Act prohibits discrimination from any kind, Dignity Health turning away Minton from their hospital violates this classification based on this action alone. The Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically guarantees “full and equal services” to everyone. Therefore, an organization cannot turn anyone away from their services under this statute. This covers sexual orientation, which also includes gender identity or expression. One essentially has the right to express any gender they want, despite it not being assigned at birth, and still be protected by the anti-discrimination act. By way of this policy, Minton should not have been denied service by Dignity Health.
Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteI chose this case for my second blog. It's interesting to see different facts and information you included and vice-versa. I argued in favor of Minton but I like how you argued on behalf of both sides in regards to different policies, which can be really important in analyzing different cases through multiple perspectives. I argued that Minton’s cause of action for violation of his civil rights bar Dignity Health’s federal and state constitutional rights of free exercise of religion and freedom of expression in this specific case for many reasons that are included in my blog post.
Although I completely disagree with all forms of discrimination and think it is wrong for the surgeons and hospital to refuse providing this surgery, I think this issue is similar to the question Professor Gasaway raised in the Bob Jones case as to whether or not they have the right to be “wrong”. The court never said Bob Jones couldn’t discriminate in order to practice and still hold their religious beliefs even though they were fundamentally racist. Also, imagine if you were the surgeon who in this case had to perform a surgery that really disagreed with your beliefs. I also think compelling someone to perform a surgery is different from compelling someone to sell flowers to same-sex couples for example. Minton could receive the surgery by someone else who would be really happy to help him and would also completely eliminate potential issues of free exercise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa but for slightly different reasons. My biggest issue here is the fact that the hospital is a non-profit, and therefore receives tax exemptions, making it similar to the Bob Jones case. The government is essentially giving financial relief to institutions that discriminate against people for religious purposes, which I see as advancing religion and an excessive entanglement between Church and State. As McKenzie points out, people have the right to be "wrong," but I do not believe they should receive government funding/aid when they are discriminating against people for religious purposes. If this was a privately-funded hospital that received no government assistance and paid full taxes, it would be a different case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa's analysis of the issues here. This case is especially interesting to me because of the structure of Dignity Health hospital system. The hospital immediately rescheduled Minton’s surgery at a “non-Catholic” affiliated hospital. I caught myself thinking that this shows that the hospital is considerate, despite their own objections. The structure of the Dignity health hospitals and the ability that they had to immediately refer Minton to a different facility may benefit them in this case, but I don’t believe that it should. What if next time the person being discriminated against isn’t so quickly accommodated? The hospital still denied Minton based on his gender identity, but they had a convenient route to do so. I found that to be an interesting facet of the case that could have implications on the outcome.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liz's analysis. Because the hospital gets tax exemptions- they don't have to pay property, sales, federal, or state taxes- they should not be allow to discriminate based on gender or sex. I also agree with Alyssa's argument about the Unruh Civil Rights Act guaranteeing care at the hospital. The hospital has an obligation to find a doctor willing to to perform the surgery that the patient came in for.
ReplyDelete