Any employer familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) is aware that religion is a protected class and characteristic under the law. Under Title VII, an employee with a sincerely held religious belief can request a religious accommodation in the workplace. A new Second Circuit Court of Appeals case provides helpful guidance regarding how courts may view an employer’s ability to question an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

When Can Employers Question a Religious Accommodation Request?

In regards to a request for a religious accommodation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) guidance has advised employers that, “Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief.  If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information.” 

As such, unless an employer finds that an employee is not acting in furtherance of a sincerely held religious belief, the employer may only deny the accommodation request if it would cause an undue hardship on the employer. (See our discussion of the undue hardship standard in our article, Navigating Religious Accommodations in the Workplace.)

Case Study: Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Factual and Procedural Background

The recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals case, Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 143 F.4th 51 (2d Cir. 2025), arose out of two Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Federal Reserve”) employees’ requests to be exempt from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The Federal Reserve Bank implemented a policy that required all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, absent a medical and/or religious exemption. Both plaintiffs, Ms. Diaz and Ms. Gardner-Alfred, requested religious exemptions, which the Federal Reserve denied, and both employees were terminated shortly after.

The plaintiffs sued Federal Reserve, alleging violations of Title VII and other laws. Each plaintiff alleged that their requests to be exempt from the vaccination policy stemmed from sincerely held religious beliefs, and that the Bank’s vaccination policy burdened or conflicted with those beliefs. 

The lower court granted summary judgment for the Federal Reserve, and both plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Upon hearing the appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Federal Reserve in regard to Ms. Gardner-Alfred’s claim; however, the court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for Ms. Diaz’s claim.

Second Circuit’s Reasoning

In regard to Ms. Diaz’s claim, the Court found that, while Diaz also had a secular objection to vaccines, those secular objections did not override, as a matter of law, her religious objection.  The Court made this finding, even though it was shown that Ms. Diaz’s pastor in the Catholic Church would not sign a document supporting her religious objection to the vaccination.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals went on to opine that the evidence presented could raise doubts about her sincerity; however, it was not sufficient to lead to a single conclusion. As a result, it remanded the case back to the lower court for a jury to decide.

However, for Ms. Gardner-Alfred’s claim, the court found that this claim was one of the rare circumstances in which a plaintiff’s testimony was so contradictory, incomplete, and unsupported that no reasonable jury could find that her beliefs were sincerely held. The Court went on to detail numerous examples of inconsistencies with Ms. Gardner-Alfred’s testimony. It also noted that the documentation provided by the plaintiff to Federal Reserve from her religious leader was a vaccination exemption package that could be purchased by anyone for $487. In addition, the Court noted that there were a number of medical procedures, prescription medicines, injections, supplements, and other types of Western medicine products and services that Ms. Gardner-Alfred used while declaring herself to be against such measures.

Key Lessons for Employers Regarding Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs

There are multiple lessons that employers can take away from this ruling regarding the evaluation of religious accommodation requests. 

First, courts will only rule on whether an employee has a sincerely held religious belief in exceptional cases where the evidence overwhelmingly shows insincerity. In all other cases, the Court will leave it up to a jury to decide whether the employee has a sincerely held religious belief.

Next, inconsistent behavior on the part of the employee by itself is insufficient to show that there is not a sincerely held religious belief. Employers should never assume that an employee deviating from their religious practices is sufficient to win a religious discrimination claim. Employers should also keep in mind that an employee’s mixed motives do not negate religious beliefs. An employee having some non-religious reasons behind their religious accommodation request is not sufficient to eliminate the legal protections under the law.

Finally, when assessing a religious accommodation request, employers should document, but not overreach. Employers can absolutely ask appropriate clarifying questions and should thoroughly document the interactive process for the religious accommodation; however, employers should avoid attempting to assess the validity or correctness of an employee’s religion or religious doctrine. Courts closely scrutinize any employer conduct that appears to go from evaluating sincerity and crosses over into acting as a theological watchdog.

Conclusion

The Gardner-Alfred case is a bit of a reality check for employers. It confirms that while you don’t have to blindly accept every exemption request, proving an employee is faking it is an uphill battle. To navigate these requests effectively and minimize risk, employers should assume the sincerity of the employee’s religious belief, acknowledge that there may be mixed motives for the belief, focus on the sincerity rather than the validity of the belief, and document the process and any inconsistencies.

Ultimately, the goal of the accommodation process should be a good-faith exploration of the request. By maintaining a respectful and objective approach, employers can fulfill their Title VII obligations without exposing the company to legal risk.

By: Cara Sheehan, Esq.

• Previous