If religious accommodation and a flu shot both equal angst, is that the transitive or substitution property?

December 17th, 2018 by David Broderick at Littler Mendelson

This blog was written by David Broderick at Littler Mendelson, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Maine Employers.

Dear Littler: Do We Have to Accommodate A Religious Objection to the Flu Shot?

David Broderick at Littler Mendelson

Dear Littler: I work in a health care setting in New Jersey. As flu season is approaching, we emailed all of our patient care employees (nurses, physical therapists, intake staff, etc.) to remind them that an immunization is required by our employer. The deadline is looming, but we have a nurse that is refusing to get the vaccine based on her supposed religious beliefs. We have exempted her for that reason in prior years—but the flu outbreak was so terrible last year, our employer does not want to allow religious exemptions. Do we need to accommodate her?

                                                                                    —Very Vexed in Voorhees

Dear Very Vexed in Voorhees,

As you know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of their religion. As part of that protection, employers are expressly obligated to accommodate religious observances and practices, absent undue hardship. As a result, your employer should consider and process this accommodation request as it would any other such request—even if accommodation ultimately is not warranted. With that basic understanding in mind, we’ll take a closer look at some of the issues lurking in this increasingly common scenario.

Background on Religious Accommodations

Let’s start with a brief refresher on religious accommodations under Title VII.1 An employer’s duty to evaluate an accommodation request generally is triggered when an employee identifies a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a workplace requirement. For example, an employee whose religion prohibits work on a certain day of the week may assert a conflict between his or her religious practices and the employer’s decision to schedule him or her to work on that Sabbath. In most instances, employers will have no reason to doubt the sincerity of an employee’s beliefs.

Importantly, the meaning of “religion” under Title VII is very broad. By definition, “religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” Moreover, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), protected religions are not limited to major, well-recognized faiths but also include “religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.”2 Title VII protects employees who adhere to theistic beliefs “as well as non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”3

Beliefs typically qualify as “religious” if they address “ultimate ideas” about human existence and purpose.4 Nonetheless, there are limits to this expansive interpretation of religion. The EEOC has conceded that “[s]ocial, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not ‘religious’ beliefs protected by Title VII.”5

In short, as long as the employee’s belief qualifies as religious under the EEOC’s broad interpretation, and is sincerely held by him or her, the employer may have a duty of reasonable accommodation. To determine whether this is the case, the employer must evaluate the specific request, consider whether a reasonable accommodation can eliminate the arguable conflict, and discuss options with the employee, including solutions he or she may have offered and alternatives the employer may find preferable. “Employer-employee cooperation and flexibility are key to the search for a reasonable accommodation.”6 The determination of whether an accommodation must be made frequently turns on the nature of the employer’s business and the scope of the religious limitation. As part of this process, the employer will also assess whether a potentially effective accommodation would pose undue hardship such as significant expense or significant burdens on co-workers.

Let’s circle back to our earlier hypothetical, concerning an employee who asserts that he or she cannot work on a Sabbath. This request may be more of a challenge for retail workplaces, for example, depending on operational and staffing needs. But if conversation reveals a solution—let’s say the employee can work Sunday evening shifts, after religious services and activities have concluded, or can use floating holidays or swaps to cover absences—accommodation may be readily accomplished. The reasonable accommodation process involves a case-by-case analysis and leaves a lot of room for creativity and collaboration.

Religious Accommodations for Flu Vaccine 

With that background in place, let’s return to your question. Our response must be guided by these same Title VII principles, because they apply equally to religious objections to a flu shot.

Nature of the Conflict

The first consideration is whether the nurse’s opposition is based on a religious and sincerely-held belief. While you don’t seem to seriously question these points in your scenario, some health care employers have concluded otherwise.

            Religiosity and Sincerity

Some employers are faced with objections that do not objectively appear religious. In a recent federal appellate case, Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, the employer had fired an employee who justified his refusal to be vaccinated with an ethical rationale that the employer did not consider religious.  The appeals court agreed and in its opinion highlighted the difference between religious tenets and personal anti-vaccination opinions.7 The Third Circuit reviewed the worker’s complaint describing his beliefs and also an essay he submitted during the proceedings. The employee explained his belief “that one should not harm their [sic] own body” and that “the flu vaccine may do more harm than good.”8 He argued that if he acquiesced to his hospital employer’s policy and received the inoculation, “he would violate his conscience as to what is right and what is wrong.”9 The Third Circuit found that his views were not “religious” within the meaning of Title VII because they: (1) did not address “fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters”; (2) were not, as delineated, part of a comprehensive belief system; and (3) were not “manifested in formal and external signs,” such as services, structure, or other such “manifestations associated with traditional religions.”10 Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of the employee’s claim.

The Fallon court acknowledged, however, that anti-vaccination beliefs could be (and sometimes are) protected where associated with religious adherence. A federal court in Ohio in 2012, for example, addressed whether devotion to veganism could be deemed “religious.” The employee in Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center was denied accommodation and terminated after refusing the flu vaccine because it would violate her vegan practice of refraining from all animal products and by-products.11 The employer discounted her veganism as a dietary preference or philosophical notion, but the court disagreed. The court pointed out that the plaintiff cited religious passages in her request for accommodation.12 The court held that it was plausible that the employee “could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views,” particularly since she is not alone in holding to that belief.13

Depending on the circumstances, some employers may have legitimate doubts as to the sincerity of the employee’s beliefs. There may be factors present, “either alone or in combination [that] might undermine an employee’s assertion that he [or she] sincerely holds the religious belief at issue.”14 Factors that may cause an employer to question an employee’s sincerity include whether: (1) “the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief”; (2) “the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons”; or (3) “the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons).”15

Even where such factors may be present, however, employers should tread lightly. The EEOC suggests that employers “should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely-held religious belief.”16 Based on your note, your employer does not seem to question the religious nature or sincerity of the nurse’s belief—particularly as it granted her religious accommodations in the past.

            Employer Inquiries and Policies

That being said, how does an employer proceed to evaluate the scope or validity of religious accommodation requests?

The process generally starts by asking questions.  Information might be needed simply to clarify a request. Consider an employee who refuses a flu shot for “religious reasons” but offers no additional details. An employer might ask for a little more information about the nature of the conflict; perhaps the objection is due to religious opposition to injections or objection to a particular ingredient that could be avoided with an alternate form of the vaccine.

Some employers may consider seeking a basic explanation of the religious objection, as means of verifying the sincerity and motivation of the request. Others maintain a regular policy of requiring some type of confirmation. The EEOC has suggested that, even where employer inquiry is proper, employees should be permitted to substantiate their beliefs in any form.17 Some employers have instructed employees to submit letters from clergy or other third parties, for example, but this practice has fallen under scrutiny.18 Employers remain free to adopt policies requiring some form of verification and may change their policies as desired.19 Nonetheless, employers should understand that not all protected beliefs will involve formal texts or clergy that might explicitly support a legitimate accommodation request.

To clarify its own procedures, your employer is certainly free to update its policy for considering religious accommodation requests, but it should not impose a ban on such arrangements. For example, your organization may require employees to submit some type of verification to explain the overall nature and scope of the opposition to the vaccine. Consistent with EEOC guidance, however, your employer should make clear its commitment that this process will be applied with sensitivity and flexibility.

Potential Accommodations

Assuming that preliminary discussion confirms there is a genuine conflict between the employee’s beliefs and the required vaccination, employers and employees should explore what accommodations might be effective in lieu of a vaccination. Depending on an employee’s duties, an employer might allow an exempted worker to wear a mask to reduce the likelihood of spreading influenza.20 In other instances, reassignment to an available position outside patient care might also constitute a reasonable accommodation.21 Or perhaps a combination of alternatives might suffice.22

Whatever accommodations might be feasible, employers should strive to offer options in a consistent manner. If an employer allows staff to wear masks instead of receiving the vaccine due to medical objections, for example, it should consider granting that same type of accommodation for religious objections. Failure to apply a policy evenhandedly may result in reduced morale, complaints, and/or litigation.23 Your employer should keep these principles in mind as it reviews the nurse’s request.

Undue Hardship

Finally, based on the nurse’s specific situation, your employer will want to weigh whether a particular accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Undue hardship arises in the context of religious discrimination if the accommodation would require the employer to incur “more than de minimiscost.”24 Factors for measuring an employer’s burden include: (1) the type of workplace; (2) the employee’s job duties; (3) the cost of the accommodation in light of the size and operating costs of the employer; and (4) the number of employees who may need the same type of accommodation. The overall cost to an employer may also take into account diminished efficiency, workplace safety complications, and disruption to the workload or rights of co-workers.25

Courts have recognized that the risk of having an unvaccinated employee transmit the flu to vulnerable patient populations might itself rise to the level of an undue hardship, depending on the evidence presented.26 This question likely would turn on a variety of facts, including the employee’s job duties, the extent of patient contact and type of patients served, as well as the employer’s ability to rearrange work flow without wider disruption. While it is conceivable that your employer might prevail on such an undue hardship defense if it denies the nurse’s request, it should not assume that this sort of burden can be easily met.

Adding to the complexity of these considerations, others laws may impact an employer’s decision-making process. Employees may also request exemption from flu vaccination policies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which involves a similar but not identical analysis, or for other medical reasons, including pregnancy.27 Some states may require vaccinations (with exceptions) for health care workers who treat patients. Yet other states may seek to protect employees who object to inoculation; the Oklahoma legislature, for example, is evaluating a bill that would prohibit discrimination against employees who refuse flu vaccinations. Employers must stay up to date on their state and local obligations on this issue.

All in all, Very Vexed in Voorhees, vaccination policies serve an important purpose for health care employers in safeguarding patient and worker safety. Yet, as you’ve seen, enforcement of these policies can raise delicate issues as employers must juggle their operational needs with their Title VII accommodation duties. I hope this summary has been helpful, and I encourage you to consult with counsel if you have concerns about the adoption of any policies or questions about particular accommodation requests.

© Littler Mendelson. All Rights Reserved.

LITTLER MENDELSON®, is a registered trademark of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Get access to hrsimple for free!

No Credit Card Required

No Obligation

Hundreds of Topics

Downloadable Forms

Employee Handbooks

Immediate Access

Related posts

Carnac the Magnificent says – Politicussin

This blog was written by Aaron Warshaw at Ogletree Deakins, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Tennessee Employers, Massachusetts Human Resources Manual, Colorado Human Resources Manual, and Employee Benefits – An Employer's Guide. You can find the original blog post and their Our Ins...

Biometrics in the Workplace

Biometric Compliance for Employers With many employers embracing new technology to achieve efficiencies in the workplace, companies using increasingly popular biometric programs must take steps to ensure that the use of these systems does not violate the law in several jurisdictions. Biomet...

Controlling the political speech of buttons*

This blog was written by Danielle Krauthamer and Setareh Ebrahimian at Fisher Phillips, which authors our South Carolina Human Resources Manual, Model Policies and Forms for Missouri Employers, Model Policies and Forms for Kansas Employers, and Workplace Safety and Health Compliance Manual. You c...

Cursing, surfing, weapons, gadgets – illegal, inappropriate or OK?

It happens in almost every workplace almost every day: somebody swears or is on an iffy website or is carrying a knife (or worse) or is using their own (not secure) phone or computer to send off a quick business email or text. So what is illegal, what is inappropriate and what is just not that...

Election leave – employer's civic duty, migraine, or just wishful thinking (election, leave!)

This blog was written by Deidra Nguyen at Littler Mendelson, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Maine Employers. You can find the original post and their Dear Littler (which is excellent) on their website.   Dear Littler: What is the Story with Employee Election Leave? Deidra...

Costumes, booze and the Great Pumpkin – beware the office Halloween party

This blog was written by Adam Gutmann at Cozen O'Connor, which authors our Minnesota Human Resources Manual, New York Human Resources Manual, and Pennsylvania Human Resources Manual. You can find the original post and their HR Headaches blog (good stuff) on their website. Halloween in the Work...

Disability/pregnancy practices – what not to practice

This blog was written by Robin Shea at Constangy, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Georgia Employers and our New Jersey Human Resources Manual. You can find the original on their Employment & Labor Insider blog (which is one of our favorites and is excellent).   Employers,...

IL – Required expense reimbursement for your employees, not Bill Self

llinois Employers Should Review Expense Reimbursement Policies Peter Gillespie Effective January 1, 2019, Illinois will statutorily require employers to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.  This requirement comes as an amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IW...

Public disclosure of confidential information is easier than you think

This blog was written by Tina Syring at Cozen O'Connor, which authors our Minnesota Human Resources Manual, New York Human Resources Manual, and Pennsylvania Human Resources Manual. You can find the original post and their HR Headaches blog (good stuff) on their website.   Do You Know What ...

Workplace shootings – 20 can-dos to prevent them

This blog was written by Debra Friedman, contributor to our New York Human Resources Manual, at Cozen O'Connor, which also authors our Pennsylvania Human Resources Manual and Minnesota Human Resources Manual. You can find the original post and their HR Headaches blog (good stuff) on their website...

No call/no show shows. No what about it.

No call. No show. Assume they quit. Find a replacement. Move on. Then who shows up but Ms. Nocall Noshow. Now what? Depends on what happened, your policy, potential laws (ADA? FMLA?), disabilities, stuff, junk. SHRM helps, with help from our author Fisher Phillips and long-time friend...

If it's called a dress code, can I wear pants?

This blog was written by Natasha Sarah-Lorraine Banks at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources.  When Strict Dress Codes Went Out Of Style: The Modernization Of Workwear “Every day is a fashion show, and the world is your runway.” – Unknown This modern-day old adage giv...

TN: Conceal and carry means post to prohibit or permit

This blog was written by William S. Rutchow at Ogletree Deakins, author of our Model Policies and Forms for Tennessee Employers. Ogletree also authors our Massachusetts Human Resources Manual, Colorado Human Resources Manual, and Employee Benefits – An Employer's Guide. You can find the original ...

Four-legged office mates and the pawternity policies they benefit

This blog was written by Danielle Krauthamer at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. You can find the original post and the On the Front Lines newsletter on their website.   Pawternity Leave: Are Employers Barking Up the Wrong Tree With Pet-Based Leave? We’ve all hear...

School-related parental leave does not mean you forge a note from your kid

This blog was written by Jason Plowman at Polsinelli. Polsinelli authors hrsimple resources in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois. You can find the original blog post and their labor and employment blog Polsinelli at Work (which is excellent) on their website.   Back to School Edition: School-...

Background checks of the future are continuous

This blog was written by Spencer Waldron at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. You can find the original post and the Employment Privacy Blog (which is excellent) on their website.   How Much Do You Really Want to Know About Your Employees? The Growing Popularity of Co...

Treating service animal requests (always treat the animal)

Service animal pop quiz (yes/no): The ADA permits assistance dogs to be with their person where members of the public can go (yes) The ADA requires service dogs to be professionally trained (no) Minature horses are covered under the ADA and Great Danes can be the size of miniature horse...

Prepare for saying "No" – you need to decide how to refuse service

This blog was written by Seth Ford and Matt Anderson at Troutman Sanders, author of the Georgia Human Resources Manual. You can find the original article and their HR Law Matters blog on their website.   A Plan for Saying No: How to Refuse Service Refusing to serve a patron is a hot topic...

List 10 up: What's the deal with employee handbook rules?

PODCAST Spend 20 minutes with Ruthie Goodboe from our author Ogletree Deakins as she discusses employer work rules and employee handbook policies and practices in the podcast What's the deal with employee handbook rules? List 10 up: covers union AND non-union workers employees raisi...

No, you can't sleep on the job

This blog was written by Shelby Skeabeck, formerly of Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   No, You Can’t Sleep on the Job, Especially when it’s...

Should you give your employees a little Slack – or do they have enough already?

Are Your Employees “Slackers”? How Employers Should Handle Slack—The Increasingly Popular Instant Messaging Application Launched in 2014, Slack is the fastest growing business application in history. For those unfamiliar with this piece of technology, Slack is a cloud-based “team collaborati...

Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies

Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies "Zero tolerance" is too blunt an instrument, and it may even increase bad behavior. Chai Feldblum, a Democratic Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was quoted this week as saying that "zero tolerance" policies can actuall...

PTO on the house!

This blog was written by Kat Cunnignham, president of Moresource Inc., a member of the Missouri Chamber. You can find the original blog post on the mobile edition of Missouri Chamber's Missouri Business   Traditionally, most companies have offered a paid leave package to employees that diff...

New rules for work rules

This blog was written by Fiona Ong at Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   NLRB Issues New (And More Balanced) Guidance on Handbook Rules ...

Guidelines for a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy

Guidelines for a Valid No-Solicitation/No-Distribution Policy Many employers would like to ensure that employees focus on their work during their working time – after all, that’s what they’re being paid to do! One way employers attempt to prevent distractions is by implementing a policy that p...

Personal hygiene in the workplace

When you took your job in HR, you knew that you would have to face some uncomfortable situations: terminations, poor performance reviews, disciplinary actions, but perhaps the worst of all is the “we need to talk about your personal hygiene” conversation. Your staff’s poor personal hygiene can ne...

Conducting internal I-9 audits

This blog is an excerpt from our book Employment Verification – An Employer’s Guide to Immigration, Form I-9 and E-Verify by David Selden and Julie Pace at The Cavanagh Law Firm. For more information, go to the Products tab above and click on "Federal" to subscribe.   For many years, an emp...

Attendance policies

Needless to say, a company can’t operate (let alone succeed) if the employees aren’t showing up to work. But how do you ensure that your workforce will consistently report for duty? One good step is having a clear attendance policy. Communicating clearly about what are acceptable reasons to miss ...

Nepotism: favoring relatives and friends in the workplace

It is not unusual for multiple members of a family to work for the same employer.  However, such situations can be troublesome if the family members are in a superior-subordinate relationship because: the relationship may give rise to favoritism or to suspicions of it the subordinate fami...

The Form I-9 has changed… Again!

Immigration enforcement is a major priority for the Trump Administration. Work site enforcement and I-9 audits and inquiries by ICE have been increasing and they will continue to increase. In addition to this, yet another new I-9 form was issued in 2017. All employers must use the new Form I-9 du...

Arizona sick day policy

Arizona sick day policy Julie A. Pace, The Cavanagh Law Firm This blog comes directly from the Arizona Human Resources Manual. If you are an hrsimple.com member, just log in and go to Chapter 21, Personnel manuals and policies. Beginning on July 1, 2017, under Arizona law, all employees ...

Vacation policies and time off

Not all employers provide employees with vacation time, but for those who do it is wise to have a clear, well-enforced policy in place to prevent confusion and help employees understand what steps need to be followed in order to use their time off. If employers decide to provide time off they nee...

Employee handbooks – getting a handle on your policies

While there may be no state or federal law requiring an employer to have a handbook, there are a number or reasons why they are in an employer’s best interest.  Usefulness. It is beneficial for there to be one definitive source on the terms of employment. If an employee ever has a question ...