Religious accommodations are increasingly becoming an issue for HR.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court Groff case (No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023)) raised the bar on what employers must do for religious accommodations, HR has been scrambling to identify ways to accommodate without causing business interruption.  For example, if the employer requires weekend shifts and the employee declines for religious reasons, how does HR respond?

First, the employee should have a sincerely held religious belief.  The perfect example is the Mark of the Beast case. In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., No. 16-1230, (4th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 12, 2017), the EEOC alleged that Consol refused to provide an employee with a religious accommodation by subjecting him to a biometric hand scanner for purposes of clocking in and out of work.  The employee believed the hand scanner was used to identify and collect personal information that would be used by the Christian Anti-Christ, as described in the New Testament Book of Revelation, to identify followers with the “mark of the beast.”  The company insisted on the use of the biometric scanner without considering alternatives.  The employee was known to have these religious beliefs, and an easy work around could have been found by using a manual entry of time.  The company refused and lost the case.

The vaccine cases have been very vexing for employers.  Many fought employer requirements of covid vaccination saying it is against their religion, and then they were fired. Initially the tables were turned in favor of the employer, but it has moved towards the employee.  In the case of Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 143 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025), the court dismissed one plaintiff’s complaint because they did not have specific ties to religious practices.

That’s good news for employers.  They can ask the employee how the practice or activity being complained about relates to their religious beliefs.  But, and a big but, don’t push it. That could lead to a different complaint of retaliation or harassment based on religious belief.

However, another plaintiff in the case had inconsistency in practicing the belief.  In that situation, the court stated that imperfect adherence does not negate sincerity and does not defeat the claim.  Yes, if at trial, the inconsistency could impact credibility of the complainant but leave it for deposition or trial.    So again, don’t push it.

Finally, the complaint for another plaintiff in a case was based on inaccurate beliefs.  The court stated that a mistaken belief deemed genuine cannot be dismissed due to factual inaccuracies.

As for accommodations, employers must provide “reasonable” accommodation.  For example, at the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, a complaint arose for a doctor who wanted time for prayer on a Friday afternoon.  The accommodation offered included reduced hours or an overly burdensome schedule. The EEOC ruled these options unreasonable, noting that any accommodation causing employee disadvantage (e.g., reduced pay) would be considered insufficient. Claims of "low morale" among staff were also deemed inadequate justification.

So, how should you handle a request for weekends off due to sincerely held religious beliefs? Here are a few possible accommodations to consider:

• Flexible scheduling, allowing an employee to alter their start and end times or use a floating holiday.
• Facilitating voluntary shift substitutions or swaps with a willing coworker.
• A temporary or permanent job reassignment to a position where the religious conflict does not exist.
• Using unpaid leave or paid time off.

The accommodation only needs to be effective in resolving the conflict; it does not have to be the most ideal solution from the employee’s perspective.

According to the EEOC guidance, it does draw the line between religious beliefs that are “sincerely held” (those that concern “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death”) versus those that concern social, political, or economic philosophies. Per the EEOC, Title VII does not protect the latter.

To prove hardship, a coworker complaint is generally not enough to claim the accommodation is an undue hardship. Yet if the complaint points to valid infringements on the coworker’s job rights or disruption of the coworker’s work, the employer could use all of these facts to support the undue-hardship argument.  Therefore, if this situation does arise, since the thresholds are low and the expectations are high, work with legal counsel to resolve the situation carefully.

Source: Offit Kurman 8/27/25, Business Management Daily 1/15/25, Seyfarth 6/16/17