MENU

Tag: freedomofreligion

Exemption from Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine for religious employees

July 2, 2021

According to the law and guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), it is possible for employers to require their employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination in most circumstances. This does not mean that all employers will make this a requirement, of course. But, they have the right to do so as a means to help improve the safety of their other employees, clients and customers.

Yet, there are certain exemptions from these mandatory COVID-19 vaccines that can be applied in certain cases. One of these is a religious exemption. Employee who demonstrate that their faith prohibits vaccination, would not automatically be not required to get a vaccine. The EEOC says employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to these workers if their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance prevents vaccination. The only exception would be if the accommodation would create an undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Understanding the Religious Accommodation Standards

As the vaccines are being rolled out, more and more employers will likely start to see objections to getting the vaccine. Therefore, it is important for employers, as well as those who are seeking accommodations, to get a better understanding of what the objections entail.

Title VII requires that employers provide accommodations and exemptions to employees that object to the vaccine due to their religious beliefs. It is important to note the term “sincerely held religious belief” in these instances.

According to the EEOC, the definition of religion can go beyond just membership in a certain church or a belief in God. It could also include moral and ethical beliefs that are sincerely held. An example of this might be someone who has moral beliefs that they should not have certain substances and chemicals injected into them. This increases the potential number of people that might attempt to use religious exemptions as a means to not get the vaccine.

Can Employers Question the Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs of an Employee?

This is a tricky area of the law, and it is important that employers do not attempt to contact someone’s place of worship, and that they don’t question an employee incorrectly. Most of the time, employers will assume that the objection based on religious beliefs is honest.

However, there may be times that an employer has a reason to question whether the employee is being sincere or if it is truly the nature of their religion. It’s best to have legal counsel to help with these matters. If there is an objection to the employee’s beliefs, the employee can provide written materials and forms to provide a further explanation. Again, employers will only want to broach this subject after talking with an attorney.

Options for Reasonable Accommodation 

What are some of the various types of reasonable accommodations that could be provided for the employees? Many options are potentially available. Of course, because there are so many different types of workplaces, there could be many different types of accommodations that could work. This also means that not all reasonable accommodations will work for all work environments.

One of the simplest options that can work for some employers would be to allow the employees to wear masks and continue to socially distance themselves while in the workplace. Another option that could work for some types of work would be remote working. 2020 proved that remote work can be a good option for many types of companies.

Many businesses have already set up these types of systems and have been using them for their employees for months. They could simply allow those who do not want to get the vaccine based on their religious beliefs to continue working from a remote location.

Another option that might work for certain employers would be to provide an isolated area for that employee to work. This can ensure that they do not come into contact with others in the workplace. This solution will not work for all employers, of course.

When employers are coming up with potential reasonable accommodations, they must also make sure that they are legitimate options that will help the employee and their business. They cannot be retaliatory to “punish” an employee for not getting the vaccine.

What is Undue Hardship?

The limit to providing reasonable accommodations would be when those accommodations would present a hardship to the employer under Title VII. Employers cannot simply claim that they would have a hardship, though. They are required to show how making the accommodation for the employee would cause them undue hardship because of an exceedingly high cost or because it would cause problems with the operation of the business. The same would be true if the accommodation would compromise safety in the workplace, or if it infringes on the rights of other employees. If the accommodation requires that other employees do more than their usual share of work in place of the exempt employee, it could be considered undue hardship as well. The same would be true if the efficiency of the workplace decreases because of the accommodations.

The standard of proof for an undue hardship under Title VII does tend to be lower than when trying to meet undue hardship requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because it can sometimes be difficult to prove whether there is hardship in these cases.

Talk with an Attorney

Those employers who want to make sure they are abiding by the law when it comes to employees requesting reasonable accommodations for religious reasons will want to speak with an attorney.

Employees who worry that an employer is not providing them with reasonable accommodations or who is trying to force a vaccine despit

The Religious Freedom at Work Rulings Explored

December 1, 2020

The year 2020 has been eventful in all respects, including clarification of religious freedoms at work. This summer, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued several rulings generally concluding that the First Amendment prevents government from interfering in the employment decisions made by many religious institutions.

SCOTUS decided that it is not the place of the government to interfere with these companies finding the employees that will be best for their religious mission and the fit in their faith-based organizations.

The result: for religious employers, there are plenty of new protections from a variety of different discrimination claims available that give more leeway in their operations and outline what the government can and can not regulate in regard to their business.

The Decisions That Turned The Tide

On July 8, the Court decided Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru where the school sought to use the “ministerial exception” to dismiss the lawsuit filed by its former employee. St. James School v. Biel was decided on the same day.

In those cases, SCOTUS held that the First Amendment does not permit courts to intervene in employment disputes involving “teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith.” State interference in that sphere “would obviously violate the free exercise of religion,” SCOTUS continued, adding that “any attempt by government to dictate or even to influence such matters would constitute one of the central attributes of an establishment of religion.” It held that employees would fit the ministerial exception even without this title or clerical duties as long as they “performed vital religious duties.”

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania was also decided on July 8th. There, SCOTUS again protected religious freedoms when it held that it “was appropriate” for the departments of health which administer the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) while formulating exemptions from the ADA’s mandate which requires certain employers to provide contraceptive coverage as part of the employee health benefit plans.

SCOTUS emphasized that the RFRA “provide[s] very broad protection for religious liberty.” And, it was “clear from the face of [RFRA] that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating RFRA.” As such, the departments did not improperly create exemptions to the ACA mandate for employers who asserted religious and conscientious objections.

The Discrimination Concern

While the law outlines how religion and law are incorporated (or separated, for that matter) regarding legal issues, there are plenty of exceptions for religion and churches. The basic idea is that these institutions can and should be able to decide various matters of doctrine and faith, including employee hiring and firing, without the intrusion of the government. The religious community is celebrating, and those who are in charge of faith-based businesses, including schools, churches, and other organizations, are happy to be able to carry on with doing what is best for their organization.

However, this new religious freedom ruling is stirring up the LGBTQ community, who says that on one hand, it is now clearly against the law to fire someone for being LGBTQ due to the Bostock decision, reported here. But on the other hand, SCOTUS just made it infinitely easier for any religious organization or employer to discriminate on various bases. There is concern that while the general provision is positive and the benefit is obvious, it could be misconstrued by some people as a new way for religious organizations to keep LGBTQ people out of their schools, businesses, churches, and other organizations.

With the majority conservative SCOTUS, these rulings are here to stay and we would be prudent to expect more of the same.