Can An Employee Object to Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines On Religious Grounds?

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

(THE CONVERSATION) The rollout of vaccines across the U.S. has finally given hope to many employers of a return to some form of normality.

Although the program has gotten off to a faltering start, the promise that hundreds of millions of employees could soon be vaccinated could provide a lifeline to businesses that rely on face-to-face customer service, such as restaurants, and also allow the reopening of offices across the U.S.

But can a company mandate its staff to be vaccinated? And what happens if an employee refuses to take the shot, citing their religious beliefs?

These are not just hypothetical questions. A number of U.S. companies including airlines and restaurants have said they’ll require mandatory vaccines for their workforce. And as a law professor who has written about vaccination laws, I believe that in some circumstances, employers could find themselves on the hook for religious discrimination if their vaccination policies fail to offer a religious exemption.

What do the guidelines say?

In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the body responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws – issued guidelines addressing employees’ rights and COVID-19 vaccinations.

It was the first time that the commission has provided an update on vaccines since the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Then, it advised employers that they should consider “encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.”

Under the new guidelines, employers are allowed to adopt mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. But the commission warned that any such policy would be subject to certain anti-discrimination laws.

In terms of religion, the commission points toward Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This legislation requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance – but only if the accommodation can be made without “undue hardship” on the employer’s business.

The new guidelines echo earlier court rulings that take a broad definition of religion as including “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” that are held by the believer with the same sincerity as that of traditional religions.

As such, opposition to mandatory vaccines could be made from members of smaller faith communities as well as from adherents of more mainstream religions. For example, some Christian Scientists and members of the Dutch Reformed Church are opposed to vaccination. There have also been legal challenges brought where employees state that their Christian beliefs require they avoid inoculation.

What is ‘undue hardship’?

Whether an objection on religious grounds is accepted will depend on whether it is deemed to not cause the business “undue hardship” – a phrase that has long been the subject of court interpretation.

On this, the new guidelines abide by the standard established in a 1977 landmark Supreme Court case, TWA v. Hardison.

In that decision, which focused on an employee’s request for time off for religious observance, the Supreme Court defined “undue hardship” as any cost greater than “de minimis,” or too small to merit consideration. In other words, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, employers would not be required to incur even a minimal cost in accommodating an employee’s religious objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

But there remains ambiguity. The guidelines do not provide specific examples of what constitutes a “de minimis” cost. Previous court decisions make clear that “undue hardship” should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

In terms of COVID-19 vaccinations, workplaces such as bars, gyms, and restaurants could conceivably claim “undue hardship” in accommodating religious exemptions to vaccinations on the grounds that doing so increases the spread of infection among their customers and employees. Similarly, health care facilities and hospitals could claim “undue hardship” due to the greater risk an unvaccinated workforce poses toward the vulnerable populations they serve.

In consumer-based businesses such as retail and restaurants, there could be an additional cost since the presence of unvaccinated workers could decrease the number of consumers or customers likely to frequent the businesses.

But at jobs in which employees work fully remotely and from home, employers might find it far harder to claim “undue hardship.” In such circumstances, employers are not likely to incur any cost in accommodating the religious employee’s objection, unless the employee themself becomes ill.

In providing its guidance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stresses that it has the authority to interpret only federal law. It warns employers to check if state and local laws provide additional protection for religious employees. For example, in New York, employers must accommodate an employee’s request for religious observance when it can be done without the employer incurring “significant difficulty or expense.”

The risk of litigation

The cost of potential litigation alone may cause employers to think twice about not providing religious exemptions from any mandatory vaccine requirement.

During the H1N1 flu pandemic, employees brought over a dozen cases challenging hospitals’ mandatory vaccination policies on religious grounds. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought an additional three lawsuits.

The lawsuits were generally unsuccessful. But some plaintiffs were able to successfully persuade hospitals to settle, with the EEOC settling cases for amounts ranging from approximately US$74,000 to $300,000.

While the current guidelines are more permissive of vaccination policies than the guidelines issued during the H1N1 pandemic, it is impossible to know the exact approach that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will take regarding religious exemptions.

But confronted with the worst public health crisis to hit the United States in a century, I believe the commission may be hesitant to bring litigation that broadly advocates for religious exemptions from vaccination.

There is a final wild card to note. In two recent cases brought to the Supreme Court, employees have asked the justices to overturn the court’s “too small to merit consideration” interpretation of “undue hardship” and instead define it as meaning significant difficulty or expense.

The cases do not revolve around vaccinations, and the Supreme Court has not yet decided if it will hear either. But if it does and decides in favor of the employees, then employers will eventually face a higher burden when it comes to accommodating religious objections to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis, and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.

If you are looking for a way to become an interfaith leader, work for racial equity and build bridges, please check out our free curriculum "We Are Each Other's" and start your interfaith leadership today

more from IFYC

It is incredibly empowering to know that by protecting yourself, you can protect so many other people.  The Lord gave us the knowledge and people we need in order to defeat COVID-19.
"99.8% of U.S. deaths are of the unvaccinated. If you heard of an airline of that percentage dying, whereas a 0.02% on another, you’re switching flights." -- Dr. Jimmie Smith, Macon-Bibb County Health Department, Georgia.
As a scholar of religious studies, I frequently use critical race theory as a tool to better understand how religion operates in American society.
Inspired by their faith, four LDS students built new study resource that has revolutionized how hundreds of thousands of aspiring physicians study for their exams. "It really started because we just wanted to help people," one said.
We're now in one of the holiest seasons of the year for one of smallest and oldest religions in India -- one with a long history in the United States.
Organizing on-campus vaccination clinics, calling thousands of students, hosting informational webinars with medical experts – these are some of the ways in which IFYC’s Faith in the Vaccine Ambassadors (FIVA) have been raising awareness around the COVID-19 vaccine on campuses and high-need communities across the nation.
Last year's winners, listed below, created a range of initiatives, from virtual retreats and criminal justice initiatives to book clubs and racial equity workshops.
Religious objections, once used sparingly around the country to get exempted from various required vaccines, are becoming a much more widely used loophole against the COVID-19 shot.
What will the campus chapel, and the chaplaincy, look like more than a century from now? Let the adventure begin.
The issue is not the presence of religion in the public square. Instead, the question before us is how to express those religious commitments within in a pluralistic society.
We don’t know what the year 5782 – as it is in the Hebrew calendar – has in store for any of us. But we have the power to act in a way to do right by each other and bring a little more peace and love and joy into this profoundly broken world.
The following interview features Dr. Toby Bressler, senior director of nursing for oncology and clinical quality at the Mount Sinai Health System and vice president of the Orthodox Jewish Nurses Association.
Part of what I found so beautiful about our conversation is that we both agree that American pluralism is not simply a pragmatic solution to the challenge of a diverse democracy, it is also a kind of sacred trust that God intends us to steward.
After 9/11, there was increased intentionality in widening interfaith relations to include a broader number of faith groups and discussions. Twenty years later, it is not unusual to see interreligious conferences, joint advocacy efforts and disaster relief teamwork involving faith groups ranging from Adventists to Zoroastrians.
Twenty years later, we at IFYC, like so many others, collect the shards of memory, recollecting, reconstituting the trauma and horror of that day. And the sacredness is in doing so together.
As we approach this significant anniversary of 9/11, we must work to infuse the day with purpose and pluralism. Pay it Forward 9/11 is bringing people together to do 20,000 good deeds for the 20th anniversary.
In the first month since 9/11, The Sikh Coalition documented over 300 cases of violence and religious discrimination against Sikhs in the U.S. and has since grown to become the largest Sikh advocacy and civil rights organization in the country.
“If you were to quiz these students on what happened on 9/11, they think they knew what happened, but nobody really explained it to them,” Lisa Doi said. “I had to think through, how do you teach this history to somebody who doesn’t really remember it?”
My prayer is that for as long as we remember 9/11, that we will take time to listen to the stories of loss that break our hearts, and join together in finding ways to heal the division, violence and hate that continue to tear apart our world.
It has been 20 years, but the pain of that day is still present in so many places.
20 years after the 9/11 attacks, four remarkable people took profound suffering, loss and grief and “somehow managed to not center enemies. What can we learn from that? How can that be a teaching to the culture?”

The opinions contained in this piece are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Interfaith Youth Core. Interfaith America encourages a wide range of views and strives to maintain a respectful tone with a goal of greater understanding and cooperation between people of different faiths, worldviews, and traditions.