Case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which suggested an undue hardship existed if the accommodation requested something more than a de minimus cost to the employer. Id. at 84. The de minimus standard is often relatively easy to meet. Because of that, employers would presume an employee had a bona fide, sincerely held religious belief and argue that the accommodation requested was an undue hardship. Emblematic of that approach is how often employers argued the that employees’ religious accommodation requests to COVID-19 vaccination mandates would create an undue hardship.
Yet, a seismic shift happened in 2023 when the U. S. Supreme Court clarified in Groff v. DeJoy that lower courts had misapplied the Transworld dicta. See Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U. S. 447( 2023). In Groff, the Supreme Court explained that an employer must show that“ the burden of granting [ a religious ] accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Id. at 470( 2023)( emphasis added). Based on that standard, it is now much more difficult for employers to establish that an accommodation constitutes an undue hardship.
Because of that, more employers began to challenge employees’ beliefs. However, these challenges have not found sympathetic ears with the federal appellate courts. A recent U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, shows this trend— especially as it relates to employers’ COVID-19 vaccine policies. Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services,( case no), 2025 WL 37237( 4th Cir. 2025). In Barnett, a Christian pediatric nurse requested an exemption from the mandate after praying and personally interpreting scripture, which led her to believe that receiving the vaccine was a sin. Her employer denied the exemption request, arguing— in part— that she did not have a bona fide religious belief. Id. at * 1-2. The employer also argued that there was an undue hardship. The U. S. Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, explaining that it joined other federal appellate courts in giving“ great weight” to an employee refusing a vaccine based on religious beliefs. Id. at * 4. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed this issue since Groff was decided, the Eighth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuit Courts all likewise gave great deference to employees’ stated beliefs. See Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 102 F. 4th 894( 8th Cir. 2024); Sturgill v. American Red Cross, 114 F. 4th 803( 6th Cir. 2024); Lucky v. Landmark Medical of Michigan, 103 F. 4th 1241( 6th Cir. 2024); Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., 108 F. 4th 1005( 7th Cir. 2024).
With this trend, if an employee shares with an employer that he or she has a sincere religious belief or practice that conflicts with a workplace policy, it is recommended that the employer engage in an interactive process— a process where employers and employees work together to come up with an accommodation— to see whether an accommodation can be made without substantially interfering with an employer’ s overall business operations.
For example, some workplaces— like the healthcare, hospitality, and transportation industries— require staffing 24 / 7 every day. In those workplaces, it may be possible to coordinate employees’ schedules to honor leave requests for religious holidays. Non-practicing employees may agree to work during another employee’ s religious holidays. Compliance with the religious accommodation laws contemplates this type of interactive process and teamwork to find a practical compromise, if possible. Of course, if this type of shift-swapping is not feasible or practical, employers will need to document why that is so and defend this decision. Consequently, employers likely should review their religious accommodation request procedures, leave policies, scheduling process, and related practices to ensure that they do not inadvertently engage in religious discrimination. �
Classified
ADS
Adams and Reese seeks a litigation associate with 3-5 years of experience to join our team in Sarasota, providing litigation support throughout Florida. Adams and Reese is a dynamic, super-regional firm dedicated to serving industry leaders throughout the Southeast with collaboration and excellence. The role involves managing a diverse and engaging caseload from start to finish. Ideal candidates have experience in construction, financial services defense, or real property litigation, as well as strong written and oral advocacy skills. Candidates should be comfortable drafting pleadings, motions, discovery, handling depositions and dispositive motions. Florida law license in good standing required. Full-time in-office.
� Apply online HERE.
Luxury solo office at a conveniently located building on Ringling and Shade. 1215 sq. ft. available now; $ 2,500(+ sales tax) per month includes all except electric. Great parking.
� Contact JLE Realty 941-906-4000 / tia @ jlerealty. com.
First Party Property Insurance Claims Attorney. Litigation and / or trial work experience required. Competitive salary and benefits. Small office with great work life balance. Ross Legal Group, Insurance Claims Attorneys, RossLegalFL. com.
� Email resume to vross @ rosslegalfl. com.
To place a classified advertisement, contact the Bar office:( 941) 861-8180 | scba @ sarasotabar. com
THE DOCKET- APRIL 2025 | 23