
EEOC Clarifies “Undue Hardship”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has emphasized a focus on religious accommodations in the workplace in recent opinions, as well as in its press release entitled “200 Days of Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work.” Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a decision that offers a timely, real-world lens on the evolving standard for evaluating “undue hardship” in religious accommodation cases. Collectively, the EEOC and the Second Circuit’s recent ruling, which builds on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, conclude that an employer must illustrate a significant hardship to show that it cannot meet a religious accommodation request in an employment discrimination case.
Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
In Gardner-Alfred,143 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025), the Federal Reserve terminated two employees after denying them religious exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required that employees be vaccinated upon their return to the office. The employees sued, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that Gardner-Alfred did not have a sincerely held religious belief against the vaccine. Gardner-Alfred asked for an accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement based on her belief that introducing foreign substances into her body would violate her conscience, based on her participation in the Temple of the Holy Spirit. However, evidence showed that Gardner-Alfred could not substantiate or give any details about her claimed “long-standing” membership in the Temple, leading the court to conclude that she adopted a “belief” solely to oppose the vaccine.
On the other hand, Diaz claimed that her Catholicism barred her from using a vaccine made from “human line cells derived from abortion.” Nonetheless, the district court found that her beliefs also were not sincere, as she acted in other ways that violated her claimed beliefs. For instance, she admitted that she took other medications without checking their ingredients or manufacturing process, leading the court to conclude that Diaz’s opposition to the vaccine was not based on her faith.
The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s dismissal of Gardner-Alfred’s claim, pointing out that she purchased a “vaccination exemption package” from the Temple containing a preprinted religious exemption request for employers. The Temple made this package available to the public, not just its congregation.
However, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Diaz’s claim by the district court, even though it noted that mRNA vaccines do not contain and are not manufactured using “aborted fetal cell lines.” When construing all permissible inferences in Diaz’s favor, which is the applicable standard on a summary judgment motion, even if Diaz was incorrect, i.e., that mRNA vaccines didn’t contain aborted fetal cells, her religious objection is still legitimate for consideration by the employer.
The Second Circuit also indicated that Diaz’s inconsistencies about her religious beliefs in terms of taking other medications were not dispositive of her claim. Furthermore, the fact that her pastor refused to sign her religious exemption request to the vaccine was irrelevant, since the operative religious beliefs in an accommodation case are the individual’s religious beliefs, not those of the Catholic church.
Establishing Undue Hardship in Responding to Reasonable Accommodation Requests from Employees
To establish a claim of religious discrimination in a Title VII claim, the employee must show the following:
- The employee sincerely held a religious belief in conflict with an employment requirement;
- The employee informed their employer of the belief; and
- The employer disciplined the employee for failing to comply with the requirement.
Nonetheless, an employer can still raise the affirmative defense that accommodating the employee’s sincerely held religious belief would constitute an undue hardship. In its 2023 decision entitled Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court heightened the standard of proof that an employer must establish to prove undue hardship in response to a religious accommodation request. Whereas lower courts previously had interpreted the undue hardship standard as “more than a de minimis cost,” the Supreme Court stated that an undue hardship now must impose a burden that “is substantial in the overall context of [its] business.”
In its post-Groff rulings, the EEOC has similarly ruled that an employer’s undue hardship must be quite significant. For instance, the EEOC recently ruled that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) violated Title VII in failing to properly accommodate a Muslim doctor who requested Friday afternoons off to engage in a prayer service. In response, the VA offered the physician two options: to work two half-days on Fridays and Saturdays each week to make up for the missed time, or to work a part-time position. The physician offered to work additional hours during the work week to complete her full 40 hours, but the VA refused that alternative.
While the EEOC pointed out that an employer is not required to choose the employee’s proposed alternative, it is required to choose a reasonable alternative. The EEOC found the employer’s offered accommodations unreasonable because they disadvantaged the employee by failing to reasonably preserve the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Plus, allowing the doctor to work additional hours during the week presented no undue hardship for the employer, as it would neither diminish patient care nor adversely impact her coworkers, even if it would limit their ability to take a Friday off from work.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the new standard for “undue hardship” in religious accommodation cases?
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy and reinforced by recent EEOC guidance, an employer can no longer deny a religious accommodation by showing only a minimal cost or inconvenience. Instead, the employer must prove that granting the request would cause a substantial burden in the overall context of its business—such as significant operational disruption, safety risks, or major financial impact. The new standard is a much higher bar than the old “more than de minimis” standard.
What did the Second Circuit decide in Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
In Gardner-Alfred, the Second Circuit reviewed two employees’ challenges to the Federal Reserve’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The court upheld dismissal of Gardner-Alfred’s claim, finding she lacked a sincerely held religious belief, partly because she purchased a generic “exemption package” from a group she could not show she belonged to. However, the court revived Diaz’s claim, holding that even if her belief about vaccine ingredients was factually wrong, it could still be sincerely held and protected under Title VII. The court also clarified that inconsistencies in religious practice or a pastor’s refusal to endorse the request do not automatically defeat a claim.
How does the EEOC expect employers to handle religious accommodation requests now?
The EEOC’s recent opinions and enforcement actions stress that employers must:
- Engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable options.
- Avoid automatically rejecting requests based on inconvenience or disagreement with the belief.
- Choose an accommodation that preserves the employee’s pay, benefits, and working conditions unless doing so would cause a significant hardship.
Stay Compliant, Stay Confident
Your charitable organization’s impact depends on staying compliant with complex and ever-changing laws. As religious accommodation requests in the workplace have become more common, all organizations must be aware of their now-heightened duty to accommodate them. At the California Center for Nonprofit Law, we provide the legal clarity and support you need so you can focus on making a difference. Connect with us today at (949) 892‑1221, email info@NPOlawyers.com, or contact us online to safeguard your mission’s future.