Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Cochran partially reverses the district court's denial of the customer's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on her claims against her local pharmacy and its head pharmacist, who refused to fill her prescription for emergency contraception. A refusal to dispense a valid prescription for emergency contraception is business discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the district court erred in instructing jurors that the customer needed to show a "material disadvantage" or "tangible change in conditions" to support a public-accommodations discrimination claim. The district court also erred in denying the motion for a new trial on the customer's claim against the pharmacy and aiding-and-abetting claims against the pharmacist for public-accommodations discrimination, but not in denying judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the customer's business-discrimination claim against the pharmacy. Reversed in part.