As we know, federal law prohibits employers from taking what the law calls an adverse employment action – some kind of negative action – against an employee for her religious beliefs, even when those beliefs conflict with a workplace policy. The New York Human Rights Law has a similar provision which makes it an
“unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer. . . to impose upon a person as a condition of. . . retaining employment. . . any terms or conditions that would require such person to violate or forego a sincerely held practice of his or her religion.”
With the COVID 19 pandemic, there were a lot of court cases addressing religious exemptions due to mandatory vaccination policies. But COVID isn’t the only situation where a religious exemption may come up.
It’s helpful to know the analysis courts use in these situations so that you can remain compliant with federal and New York State law. One recent case, for example, involved an employee who claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine defiled her temple and therefore would cause her to violate her religious beliefs.
Eligibility for Religious Exemptions
The bottom line in these situations is that employees who have a sincerely-held religious belief may be exempted from an employment policy.
That begs the question: what’s considered a religious belief? Courts have this same concern. In Title VII cases, federal courts need to determine whether the claimed religious belief (1) is actually religious and (2) whether the person sincerely holds that belief. In many cases, including in a recent Pennsylvania-area federal court case called McCadd v. Kraft Heinz Co., sincerity is a very low bar to overcome, so the court spent a fair bit of time analyzing whether the belief was, indeed, religious or whether it was simply a personal or medical belief.
In deciding what’s considered religious, the McCadd court explored whether the employee’s beliefs “address[ed] fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters” and were “comprehensive in nature.”
That’s the standard being used these days. It sure can sound like a lofty one. So what’s a business owner or human resources professional to do with this?
Practically, the court looked at the employee’s reasoning for not wanting the vaccine. She had claimed her body was a temple and that the vaccine would defile her temple. She also claimed that God sometimes told her which foods and drinks would be bad for her, but it wasn’t a comprehensive system. Given all this, the court surmised that if she didn’t believe the vaccine would be harmful to her, her religion wouldn’t prevent her from being vaccinated. The court ruled, then, that her belief was a medical belief, not a religious belief.
It goes without saying that some employees may have legitimate religious reasons for not being able to comply with a particular employment policy, but for employees who are trying to use religion as a way out, their excuses tend to be a personal preference or medical belief hidden behind the veil of religion.
It sometimes can be a very fine line, so if you want to avoid all risk, you’ll accommodate the belief. But that’s not always reasonable to do, especially if doing so will have consequences among your larger workforce.
The Employee’s Burden
When an employee claims that religion prevents her from complying with a workplace policy or rule, she’s got a burden to demonstrate her sincerely-held religious belief. First, she’s got to demonstrate that (1) she holds a genuine religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement and (2) she informs her employer of this belief.
When the employer doesn’t accommodate her belief by giving her a pass on the workplace rule, then she also has to show a court that she was disciplined for not complying with the workplace rule.
The Employer’s Litigation Burden
Once the worker establishes the three elements of her claim, the burden generally shifts to the employer. The employer then has to prove that allowing the religious exemption would have resulted in an undue hardship.
One example of undue hardship is when an accommodation results in the employer’s breaking the law. For example, in New York State during the COVID pandemic, there was a law mandating that healthcare workers must be vaccinated if they could transmit the virus to patients, coworkers, or others. There were many cases where unvaccinated employees sued their employers for firing them, but the employers generally were protected because accommodating the employee – allowing them to come to work unvaccinated – would have required the healthcare employer to violate State law.
For an employer, then, it’s critical to stay up to date on new laws that may affect your business. This allows you to ensure that any religious accommodations requested by an employee don’t conflict with existing State – or federal – laws. Again, if there’s a conflict that would have you violating a law, then an employer simply isn’t required to accommodate the employee.
Another example of an undue hardship is when an accommodation would result in substantial increased cost for the employer. Courts generally look at this situation in a common-sense way, assessing the additional cost – perhaps in terms of needing additional staff or equipment, depending on the circumstances – against the usual expenses of operating the business.
For employers, then, you should keep track of financials and the impact that an employee’s religious exemption may have on your expenses. One case we previously wrote about explained that when a United States Postal Service worker claimed he wasn’t able to work on Sundays due to his religion, the USPS would have been required to hire other workers to cover his shift, leading to considerable overtime expense. While some increased costs might very well be reasonable and therefore not an undue hardship, other expenses might tip the balance towards undue hardship.
Practice Pointers
When faced with a religious exemption request, gather the facts from your employee and document your analysis and conclusions. Think about:
- Is there any law that the company would violate if it accommodates the employee’s request? Both federal laws and New York State laws are on the books for a reason, and employers are required to abide by them. An employer doesn’t need to accommodate a religious exemption if it means violating a law.
- Does the requested accommodation create a substantial financial hardship on the business? Ultimately if there’s a claim, the burden will be on the employer to prove this, so being able to show and explain financial data is critical.
- Is there a way to accommodate the worker without violating a law or shouldering an undue hardship? We’re all human, and sometimes exceptions should be made for differing beliefs.
There’s also a useful religious accommodations fact sheet published by the EEOC that may be of some help. The New York Division of Human Rights also published guidance on reasonable accommodations that tends to be a “how to” for employees who believe they’re being discriminated against, so it can be helpful insight.
If you have questions regarding workplace accommodations or other employment-related requirements, contact us. We’re here to help.
