Although management-side attorneys have expressed skepticism about the claim, Andrew Hartley filed a lawsuit against Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., alleging that he was unlawfully forced to compromise his religious beliefs through participation in the company's 401(k) plan due to his moral objection to fossil fuel investments. Hartley brought the claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace.

This case is an extension of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 of Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22–174 (2023) which made it more difficult for employers to reject workers’ religious accommodation requests under Title VII.

It is a novel question whether a sincerely held religious belief, depending on how it is identified, can create an obligation that a company has to do a reasonable accommodation concerning 401k plan design. First, the employee must show that they have a sincerely held religious belief that concerns fossil fuels. Second, if enough information is presented, the employer must conduct an interactive discussion as to the request.  The question is whether there is any reasonable accommodation as to their 401(k) plan design.  Any accommodation could lead to another possible lawsuit of underperforming funds or high-cost funds liability, which these type of lawsuits has grown greatly over the past.

A fiduciary “has the highest duty known to the law to manage the plan as a prudent financial expert would do under the same circumstances,” said Charles Field, co-vice chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP. “What would happen if the investment that they were told to make didn’t turn out very well? That’s a problem.”

“My perspective would be being forced or requested to add sort of a bespoke investment to a plan lineup that comes with a corresponding duty to monitor is an undue burden, but we’ll have to see where the courts go on that,” said Rick Nowak, co-chair of Mayer Brown’s ERISA litigation practice.

This intersection of religious accommodation and 401(k) funds is a growing concern.  Seyfarth Shaw LLP partner Dawn Solowey said she’s advised several employers who have received accommodation requests related to retirement funds. For example, in certain cases, Muslim workers have requested halal retirement funds that comply with Shariah law by not paying or charging interest, and not investing in industries like alcohol, weapons, and pork manufacturing.

The real issues which causes employers consternation is how to determine whether a religious stated belief is a sincerely held belief. EEOC guidance encourages employers to presume a belief is sincere unless there’s “objective evidence to the contrary,” Solowey said. The EEOC says that objective evidence could be a “particularly desirable benefit” request that is likely sought for secular reasons, or a case of suspect timing if a worker requests a benefit for secular reasons and then re-requests for religious ones.  It is important that HR work with their employment counsel to develop a game plan to evaluate these requests. 

To muddy the waters, Solloway points out that “the courts and the EEOC are very clear that a religious belief does not need to be based in organized religion, and it could be something that is idiosyncratic to a particular individual.” For covid vaccine religious objections, the “My Body, My Temple” has been a recognized claim by the courts against vaccine mandates. The employee could also claim that AI told them not take the vaccine when AI is considered a religious renderer of theology.

That’s where Hartley’s claim may have some strength, said Whittney Barth, an Emory University School of Law professor. Hartley argued his faith calls him “to care for and steward the earth,” and, as a result, he keeps a plant-based diet, travels largely by bicycle, avoids fossil fuels in personal investments, and donates to environmental causes. All of this could support that his religious belief is sincere, Barth said. 

This case is an interesting one that employers will need to keep on their radar.

Source: Bloomberg Law 8/7/26, Mayer Brown 8/10/26