Second Circuit: Evidence of Sincerely Held Beliefs Clarified for Religious Accommodations

/in

APPLIES TO

Employers with 15+ Employees in CT, NY, and VT

EFFECTIVE

August 11, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456
Quick Look

  • Discreditable evidence of a sincerely held religious belief does not mean that it is undisputed that the employee did not have a sincerely held religious belief.
  • An employee must essentially provide no evidence that they have ever acted consistently with their professed religious beliefs, other than their refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine, in order for a court to rule that there were no sincerely held religious beliefs.

Discussion

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment ruling saying that there were issues of fact to determine whether the employees had sincerely held religious beliefs that would have exempted them from following the employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

 

Here, two Federal Reserve employees were terminated for failing to conform to the employer’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. The employer granted the employees temporary exemptions for religious accommodation, but the exemptions expired without being allowed to renew. In the course of the litigation, the employees provided discreditable testimony around whether their beliefs were sincerely held; however, there were different outcomes for each.

 

For one, an employee claimed to be opposed to the vaccine because she thought it was made using aborted fetal cell lines, when it was undisputed that the vaccine was not. However, the court said what actually matters at summary judgment is that a reasonable jury could find that the COVID-19 vaccines were produced with aborted fetal cells in a manner that the employee believed would contravene her religious beliefs. Moreover, her objections could be found by a jury to be adequately explained, and the judge improperly made conclusions that were not undisputable. The applicable standard focused on whether the employee sincerely believed that the use of COVID-19 vaccines was contrary to her religious convictions. The court said that while her testimony may be discreditable, it did not rise to the level of being undisputed for purposes of granting a summary judgment motion.

 

For another, the court reiterated that the evidence the employee acted inconsistently with her professed religious beliefs is not a sufficient basis upon which to resolve her religious sincerity as a matter of law. The difference in this instance is that unlike the first employee, the evidence of the second employee’s religious beliefs is “so wholly contradictory, incomplete, and incredible that no reasonable jury could accept her professed beliefs as sincerely held.” For example, the employee could give almost no details about her purported membership in her ascribed religion, and what details she did give were often contradicted directly by other portions of her own sworn testimony. Ultimately, the employee provided no evidence that she has ever acted consistently with her professed religious beliefs other than her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

 

Action Items

  1. Employers should review denials of religious accommodations with legal counsel before taking adverse action.

 

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