Somebody say "Amen."
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has added a new section to its COVID-19 guidance, related to religious objections to vaccine mandates.
I am happy (OK, relieved) to say that the latest addition to the EEOC guidance is consistent with my meditation on this subject from back in early September. The EEOC guidance is also eminently reasonable. A treat, not a trick.
You employers who are facing religious accommodation requests should read the EEOC guidance in its entirety (it's not that long -- scroll way down to subsection L at this link). Meanwhile, here are the highlights:
Does an employee with a religious objection to the vaccine have to inform the employer of the objection?
Of course, you silly goose. Otherwise, how would the employer know of the need for accommodation? The employee doesn't have to use any "magic words," but he or she does need to get across to the employer that being vaccinated conflicts with the employee's sincerely held religious belief.
The EEOC also recommends that employers notify employees whom to contact if they want to request a religious accommodation.
Can the employer ask for more information about the employee's beliefs before deciding whether to make a religious accommodation?
Yes. The employee should be given the benefit of the doubt, but it is fine for the employer to make a limited request for more information if it has reason to question (1) whether the belief is truly "religious" in nature, or (2) whether the employee's belief is sincere.
Title VII does not protect social, political, or economic views, or personal concerns. Thus, objections to COVID-19 vaccination that are based on social, political, or personal preferences, or on nonreligious concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine, do not qualify as 'religious beliefs' under Title VII." -- EEOC, What You Should Know About COVID-19, the Rehabilitation Act, and other EEO Laws," Section L.2.
The EEOC reminds employers that the religious protections of Title VII apply to much more than the big faiths that everyone has heard of, that a person doesn't have to be "scrupulous" in his or her religious practice to be sincere, and that unique beliefs or practices even within a faith or denomination may still be entitled to accommodation.
If the employee's objection is either not "religious" in nature or is not based on a belief that is sincerely held, the employer may refuse the accommodation without going to the next step.
Which brings us to the next step . . . undue hardship.
Even if the objection is religious and very sincere, the employer still doesn't have to accommodate if doing so would be an undue hardship. Employment lawyers for years have been advising employers to pretty much forget about "undue hardship" as a reason for denying an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's because under the ADA, accommodation has to result in a significant difficulty or expense to be an undue hardship, a standard that is almost impossible for most large employers to meet.
But the undue hardship standard under Title VII is easier for employers. All the employer has to show is that religious accommodation would result in more than a "de minimis" expense or inconvenience.
That easier standard doesn't mean you don't have to consider requests for religious accommodation. Even under the "employer-friendly" standard, the EEOC recommends that employers consider things like letting their religious objectors work from home, or reassigning them to different jobs, if those options are possible. Presumably, regular testing and social distancing would be other reasonable accommodations. On the other hand, the "cost" of accommodation can include the risk of transmission of COVID and the safety of the employee's co-workers and others.
"If I accommodate you, do I have to accommodate everybody?"
No! The employer can take into account the cumulative cost of accommodation in determining undue hardship. It can't say no based on speculation that it will be opening the floodgates to other accommodation requests. But if the concern is more than speculative (for example, if it's based on accommodation requests that have actually been made) then the employer may be able to deny the request based on concerns about the cumulative effect.
Stop me if I've told you this one before. Before COVID, a manufacturer with 24/7 operations had a workforce that was almost 100 percent Baptist. A handful of very devout Baptist employees believed it was a sin to work on Sundays, and they asked to have Sundays off as a religious accommodation. The plant manager was terrified that if he accommodated the handful, the entire plant would refuse to work on Sundays, and then what would he do?
As I read the EEOC's guidance, the plant manager's speculation about floodgates would not be a legitimate reason to refuse the requested accommodation. Likewise, if one employee seeks a religious exemption from a vaccine mandate, the employer cannot refuse to accommodate out of a speculative fear that "if I grant it to you, I'll have to grant it to everybody."
Back to our story. The plant manager overcame his concerns and accommodated the super-devout Baptist employees by not scheduling them to work on Sundays. And, as it turned out, their Baptist co-workers couldn't have cared less about working on Sundays, so the plant carried on without a hitch. And everyone lived happily ever after.
BUT IF THEY HAD NOT . . . if the plant manager had been right, and if a large number of employees asked for Sundays off, the EEOC guidance indicates that he could have drawn the line and said that granting all the requests would have been an undue hardship.
Does the employer have to provide the accommodation requested or preferred by the employee?
No. Just as with the ADA, the employer can choose a cheaper, easier accommodation as long as it is effective (in the context of religious accommodation, "effective" means it eliminates the conflict between the employee's job requirements and the employee's faith). In the context of vaccination exemptions, the EEOC says that the employer can consider the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in determining which accommodations to make.
The EEOC does recommend that the employer explain in advance to the employee why it is not making the accommodation requested.
Once the employer makes a religious accommodation, can it reconsider?
Yes, if circumstances have changed. But the EEOC recommends that the employer discuss it with the employee and explore alternatives before ending the accommodation.
That's the quick and dirty. Good stuff. And happy Halloween!
Image Credits: Sidewalk preacher by daliscar1, peeping skeleton by deckerme, both from flickr, Creative Commons license. Trick-or-treaters from Adobe Stock.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010