California: doctors cannot discriminate against lesbians on the basis of religion

California: doctors cannot discriminate against lesbians on the basis of religion

Justice Joyce Kennard
The California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously, in a decision written by Justice Joyce Kennard, in Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group [PDF file], that doctors of the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group cannot deny medical treatment to people based on their sexual orientation. In 1999, that Group refused to provide fertility treatments to Lupita Benitez because Benitez was a lesbian in a same-sex relationship. In its historic decision, the court ruled that California law prohibited such discrimination and rejected the doctors’ argument that their religious beliefs should enable them to deny treatment based on their religious objections to serving lesbian patients.

History of the case

The trial court rejected the doctors’ defence. The doctors, unhappy with the result, appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court held that the doctors had to be given an opportunity to demonstrate that their refusal to treat Lupita Benitez was not based on her sexual orientation. Lupita Benitez then appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The California Supreme Court said:

Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both
the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians
from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against
discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland’s child protection system is facing an urgent and deeply troubling question: why are children who cannot safely return home being left in state care for years, often moving from placement to placement, without genuine consideration of adoption? The recent Child Safety Inquiry has put that question squarely on the table. Its findings are confronting.… Read More »Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

  Queensland’s new sperm donor family limits were meant to provide sensible safeguards for children conceived through donor treatment. Instead, Queensland Health has adopted an interpretation that appears to split a female same sex couple into two separate families. That position is difficult to reconcile with the law, common sense, and the lived reality of… Read More »Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

South Australia takes a distinctly narrow approach to surrogacy agreements. The issue is not simply whether a proposed arrangement is altruistic, or whether everyone involved has acted with the best of intentions. Under the Surrogacy Act 2019 (SA), the first question is whether the arrangement falls into the category of a lawful surrogacy agreement. That… Read More »South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board