January 13 Tip of the Week
“Sincerely Held Religious Belief”
One of the most difficult issues employers face is a request for a religious accommodation. Under the law, an individual with a sincerely held religious belief can seek an accommodation from their employer regarding activities or conduct that the employee claims violate their religious belief. These types of religious accommodation requests generally apply to situations involving work schedules, working on religious holidays or allowing individual employees to wear certain garments that are required by their religious faith. The difficulty that employers encounter when dealing with accommodation requests on the basis of religion is the presumption that the EEOC has made regarding the validity such requests:
Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_984461328691610748665504
Absent a finding that the employee is not acting in furtherance of a sincerely held religious belief, an employer may only deny a request for religious accommodation if the employer can show that the accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer.
A recent Second Circuit case that addressed the request of two Federal Reserve employees to be exempted from the requirement that they be vaccinated for COVID-19 has provided additional, helpful guidance for employers regarding their ability to question an employee’s “sincerely held” belief. In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 143 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025), the Court reviewed a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the Federal Reserve regarding the termination of two employees, Gardner-Alfred and Diaz, based on their failure to provide objective evidence that they had a sincerely held religious belief regarding vaccinations. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Federal Reserve with respect to Ms. Gardner-Alfred and reversed the grant of summary judgment with respect to Ms. Diaz.
In upholding the lower court’s decision with respect to Ms. Gardner-Alfred, the Second Circuit cited numerous examples of inconsistencies in Gardner-Alfred’s testimony and emphasized the fact that the documentation that Gardner-Alfred provided from her “religious leader” was a vaccination exemption package that could be purchased by anyone in exchange for a payment in the amount of $487. The Court also pointed to the number of medical procedures, prescription medicines, injections, supplements and other types of Western medicine products and services Gardner-Alfred used while professing to be against such measures.
With respect to the second plaintiff, Ms. Diaz, the Second Circuit overturned the summary judgment ruling in favor of the Federal Reserve, finding that Diaz was able to establish a question of fact regarding her sincerely held religious belief regarding vaccines. The Court found that, while Diaz also had a secular objection to vaccines, that did not override as a matter of law her religious objection. This was true, even though Diaz’s pastor in the Catholic Church would not sign a document supporting her religious objection to the vaccination.
While this case addressed the controversial vaccination requirements that employers imposed on their employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Second Circuit’s decision and analysis in this case is instructive to employers when handling religious accommodation requests. The Second Circuit’s reasoning was based on the following principles:
- An individual seeking a religious accommodation cannot be found to not have a sincerely held religious belief because they may have engaged in inconsistent behavior regarding that belief. The sincerity of the religious belief in light of the contradictory conduct is a question of fact for the jury.
- The failure to provide a letter of support from a clergy member or a spiritual leader is not dispositive of the sincerity of the religious belief. The determination regarding the sincerity of someone’s beliefs must be based on their personal belief system and those beliefs do not have to match a specific religion.
- An individual, in raising a religious objection or seeking a religious accommodation, may be motivated by both religious and secular reasoning. The presence of two different motivations does not undermine the sincerity of the religious objection.
While employers who receive religious accommodation requests are still subject to the presumption that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief is valid, this case opens the door to a more thorough review of such requests. This is particularly true when presented with objective evidence that undermines the employee’s motivation for seeking such an accommodation. myHRcounsel can assist you in reviewing these requests and ensuring that you are in compliance with the requirements of the law.