The Case of the Conveniently Religious Employee

I’ve got another confession to make.

One of my not-so-guilty pleasures is when employees seeking “religious” accommodations at work get undone by their own hypocrisy.

For example, last night, I read a federal court decision about a Senior Manager in the R&D department of a major food company who refused to comply with the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Her reasoning? A religious belief that her body is a temple, and she must consult with God before letting anything enter her bloodstream.

Seems suspiciously convenient, doesn’t it? The court thought so too.

The Court’s Decision: A Divine Comedy

Under Title VII, the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that her beliefs qualified as genuinely religious, deserving protection under the law. Specifically, she needed to demonstrate that her beliefs were sincerely held religious convictions rather than personal or secular preferences.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the company, finding that the plaintiff’s beliefs were rooted more in personal preference than genuine religious doctrine. Importantly, the court clarified it wasn’t questioning whether the plaintiff sincerely believed her claims; rather, it scrutinized whether her beliefs qualified legally as “religious” under Title VII.

The judge didn’t mince words, pointing out glaring inconsistencies in her claims. For instance, the plaintiff claimed God instructed her that the COVID-19 vaccine would defile her body, yet apparently God had no issues with alcohol, food, or caffeine. Talk about selective divine guidance!

The court humorously criticized her selective religious observance as “Plaintiff’s ‘going off of vibes’ approach,” highlighting that her beliefs allowed her to cherry-pick both when she consulted with God and which substances “defiled” her body.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

While many religious exemption requests are sincere and legitimate, here are three key takeaways from this particular case:

• Know the Law: Title VII protects genuine religious beliefs but not personal preferences disguised as religious beliefs. Ensure your policies align with legal standards and clearly distinguish between the two.
• Beliefs Can Evolve: Employers should recognize that an employee’s religious beliefs and practices may change over time. Title VII is in play as long as the belief is religious and not secular.
• Focus on Accommodation, Not Sincerity: Employers generally benefit from focusing on accommodating religious beliefs rather than questioning their sincerity. However, credibility and consistency remain critical.

And, of course, this decision doesn’t mean employers can dismiss genuine religious exemption requests lightly; every claim requires careful evaluation.

Common Sense Conclusion:

Ultimately, this case serves as a clear reminder that certain beliefs, while protected, must be genuine and religious. But in the bigger picture, employers are better served focusing on accommodating individuals rather than scrutinizing whether the employee’s beliefs are religious.

And employees? They might want to think carefully before selectively claiming divine intervention on a case-by-case basis.