A judge ruled that refusing to give Andrea Anderson emergency contraception wasn't discrimination based on sex.

That conclusion makes sense to me: it didn't fall under the heading of "discrimination" because there is no reason to believe the pharmacist would have treated a male patient differently. In my view, it was an injustice for the pharmacist to refuse to fill her prescription, but it was a different kind of injustice.

There is something in the article I don't clearly understand. Did the jury award Anderson $25k in damages (under some other rubric), or not? If it did, that could be a very good outcome: perhaps sufficient to convince those pharmacies not to let this happen again. But if so, I'd like to understand the reasons for it.