Legal and Ethical Implications of Refusing to Counsel Homosexual Clients.

In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an employer's statutory obligation to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs does not include accommodating a counselor's request to be excused from counseling homosexual clients on relationship issues (Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., 2001). The counselor who filed the lawsuit claimed that her employer's failure to allow her to refrain from counseling clients on issues inconsistent with her religious beliefs violated federal law. The court disagreed and found the counselor's allegations had no merit. Although the court addressed only the counselor's rights according to state and federal laws, this case has broader legal and ethical implications. The purpose of this article is to inform counselors of this legal precedent and to address the legal and ethical issues related to this case. Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. (2001) In the Bruff case, the plaintiff was one of three counselors in the North Mississippi Medical Center Employee Assistance Program, a program established to provide counseling to employees of regional businesses. In 1996, Bruff counseled a client identified in the pleadings as Jane Doe. After several counseling sessions, Jane Doe informed Bruff that she was a lesbian and asked for assistance in improving her relationship with her partner. Bruff refused to counsel Jane Doe on this issue, explaining that homosexual behavior conflicted with her religious beliefs. Bruff offered to counsel Jane Doe on other issues and scheduled another appointment for her. Jane Doe did not return for further counseling and complained to her employer about the counselor's conduct. Jane Doe's employer flied a complaint with Bruff's employer, the North Mississippi Medical Center. In response to the complaint, Bruff told her employer that she refused to counsel Jane Doe on how to improve her homosexual relationship because homosexuality was inconsistent with Bruff's religious beliefs. As per company policy, the Medical Center requested that Bruff document the job responsibilities from which she wished to be excused. She responded that she wanted to be excused from "actively helping people involved in the homosexual lifestyle to have a better relationship with their homosexual partners" (Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., 2001, p. 497). She also expressed that she would decline to counsel clients on having better sexual relationships if those relationships were outside of the bounds of marriage. She further indicated that she did not have a problem counseling clients who were homosexual or having extramarital relationships, she would simply decline to counsel the clients about these relationships. The Medical Center management considered accommodating Bruff's religious beliefs by shifting responsibilities among the three Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselors. However, on the basis of their limited resources, they found that this option was not feasible. Accordingly, the management sent Bruff a letter explaining that EAP contracts obligated counselors "to treat a wide variety of psychiatric disturbances and clinical issues" (Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., 2001, p. 497) and that the contracts did not exclude "individuals with certain types of issues" (p. 497). The letter also explained that treating a client on some issues, but not other issues, could be considered a violation of ethical standards. Bruff was dismissed from her counseling duties and placed on leave without pay. Bruff appealed this decision to the vice president of the Medical Center. The vice president asked Bruff if there were any other situations in which she would not be willing to counsel a client. Bruff responded that she would "not be willing to counsel anyone on any subject that went against her religion" (Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. …