Sixth Circuit: Avoid Aggressive Tactics to Determine Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs for Religious Accommodations
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in KY, MI, OH, and TN |
EFFECTIVE September 29, 2025 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
On September 29, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a married couple that challenged their employer’s process for granting a religious accommodation could proceed with their case alleging that they were subjected to an adverse employment action. Here, the employer was a national laboratory in Tennessee that required all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or face termination. The plaintiffs, a married Christian couple, believed that the vaccine mandate violated their religious beliefs opposing abortion because the COVID-19 vaccines were developed using cells extracted from aborted fetuses. However, those requesting a religious accommodation would have to go on unpaid leave or use vacation days until the end of the pandemic.
The plaintiffs sued for and received a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the unpaid leave policy. During this period, the wife qualified for a medical accommodation. However, the husband was told he needed to sit for a panel interview during which the employer’s representatives would examine him about this religious beliefs. During this process, he was required to read and respond to a fact sheet that contained information about cell lines from aborted fetuses and quotes from faith leaders that differed from his beliefs. The plaintiffs sued for disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation due to their objections to the vaccine mandate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer, and the plaintiffs appealed.
While the court ultimately found the wife did not have standing and suffered no harm due to the fact she received a medical accommodation, the court did find the husband’s claims were held to too high of a standard by the district court. Under recent Supreme Court precedent in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employee does not need to show that the discrimination caused a “materially adverse” impact beyond that they were forced to choose between faith and work. In order to prove his disparate treatment claim, the husband had to show only that he was treated worse than other employees and not that the harm incurred was significant. For the failure to accommodate claim, the husband only had to show that the harm is having to choose between violating his religious beliefs and violating workplace policies. Lastly, as to the retaliation claim, the court found that a reasonable juror could find that the interview process the husband had to endure “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making” a request for accommodations. Ultimately, the court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to all of the husband’s claims and remanded it for a jury trial in accordance with its opinion regarding the burdens of proof for each separate claim.
This case reinforces that employers should not use aggressive tactics to determine whether an employee’s religious beliefs are sincerely held in order for a religious accommodation to be provided. Instead, employers should focus on whether the accommodation can be provided or whether it would constitute an undue hardship.
Action Items
- Review process for evaluating requests for religious accommodation.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
- Consult with legal counsel prior to denying requests for religious accommodation.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase