What Employers Can Learn From Second Circuit's Religious Accommodations Decision

Religious accommodation decisions often depend on the specific facts surrounding an employee's request and the employer's response. In Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified how courts should evaluate claims that an employer failed to accommodate an employee's religious practice under Title VII.

What Happened?

In Bergin, an employee alleged that she had requested a religious exemption from her employer's COVID-19 vaccination requirement. In her request she provided a personal statement, scripture references, and a letter from her pastor.

In follow up, the employer asked her to complete a supplemental form so it could better understand her objection. She initially returned the form without answering most of the questions, and the employer denied the exemption. She later submitted the requested information, but the employer declined to reconsider, eventually terminating the employee for non-compliance with the vaccination requirement.

What Did the Court Decide?

Under the Second Circuit's older approach, an employee generally had to show that:

• A religious belief conflicted with a workplace requirement;
• The employee informed the employer about the conflict; and
• The employer disciplined the employee for failing to follow the requirement.

The Second Circuit replaced that approach based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The court said the test under Abercrombie focuses on whether the employer wanted to avoid providing accommodations.

Moving forward, a plaintiff must now demonstrate:

• That they actually required an accommodation of their religious practice; and
• The employer's desire to avoid providing that accommodation was a motivating factor in an adverse employment decision.

This shifts focus on what the employer knew to what motivated the employer's decision.

The court did not decide whether the employee was entitled to the exemption or whether the employer acted unlawfully. Instead, it returned the case to the lower court to reconsider those questions under the new standard.

What Should Employers Do?

This decision only directly applies in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, but it relies on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and provides useful guidance for employers elsewhere.

Evaluate Each Request Individually

Employers should consider the information provided, ask reasonable follow-up questions, and avoid making assumptions about the employee's beliefs or the likely outcome.

Keep Communication Consistent

Internal communications and the final decision should accurately reflect the employer's reasoning. Managers should also know when to refer a request to Human Resources or legal counsel.

Document the Reason for the decision

The record should explain what information the employer considered, whether it evaluated possible accommodations, and why the request was approved or denied. This can help show that the decision was based on the circumstances of the request, not a desire to avoid providing an accommodation.

The Key Takeaway

This decision shifts the focus from process, what the employer knew and how it responded, to motive. The question is whether the employer's desire to avoid providing an accommodation influenced its decision. Moving forward, employers should use a consistent review and communication process and document the business reasons that support their decision.