Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        Myth Buster: Employees Do Not Have to Be Affiliated With An Organized Religion to Be Entitled To A Religious Accommodation

        October 14, 2021

        This is the third in a series of posts from Verrill with the purpose of helping to dispel myths that are currently circulating concerning employment laws and rules related to COVID-19 and vaccine mandates.

        A myth we have been hearing from clients and friends is that in order for employees to be exempt from vaccine mandates for religious reasons, the employee must belong to a religious group that opposes the COVID vaccine. However, under Title VII, employees are entitled to religious accommodation regardless of whether they are a part of an organized religion.

        To provide some context, under Title VII, employers are required to reasonably accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious belief or practice, unless doing so would result in an undue hardship for the employer’s business. 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)(j). But what is a sincerely held religious belief?

        It may surprise some readers that a sincerely held religious belief does not have to be affiliated with a formal religion. The agency responsible for enforcing Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), states “The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.”[1] Accordingly, employees can have a valid religious belief under Title VII even if they are the only person who has this belief.

        Further, employers may not deny an employee a religious accommodation because the employer believes the religious belief to be unreasonable, incorrect or implausible. For example, if an employee refused to receive the vaccine because they believed the vaccine would violate their religious belief of “my body is a temple”, but the employer was aware that the employee regularly participated in activities that objectively harmed their body, like excessive alcohol consumption or drug usage, the employer cannot deny an accommodation based on that contradictory fact alone.

        Even if employees are affiliated with a religious organization, it is important to note that employers can’t deny an accommodation because the leader of that organization has a different belief than the employee. See EEOC v. Consol Energy Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2017). For example, a Catholic employee could have a religious belief that they are unable to receive any of the COVID vaccines due to concerns about their contents, even if the Vatican has issued statements indicating the overall moral duty is to receive a vaccination.

        Additionally, Atheist employees have been found to have sincerely held religious beliefs and accordingly are protected under Title VII. See Reed v. Great Lakes Companies, Inc. 330 F.3d 931,934 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”), EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 614-21 (9th Cir. 1988) (employer must accommodate an employee’s atheism; no undue hardship because excusing employee from services would not have cost anything nor caused a disruption), Young v. Sw. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 509 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1975) (finding Title VII violated by requiring atheist employee to attend prayer portion of business meeting).

        When evaluating whether an employee’s religious belief is sincerely held, it is important for employers to err on the side of caution and remember that there is not an extensive list of criteria a belief must meet in order to be protected by Title VII.

        This information is current as of October 13, 2021. For more information, please contact a member of Verrill’s Employment and Labor Practice Group.

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Construction Attorney Cassie Dufon

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill is pleased to welcome Cassie Dufon to the firm’s Construction Group as an Associate, resident in the firm’s Portland...
        Press Releases

        Verrill’s Wide-Ranging Private Wealth Law Practice Recognized in 2026 Chambers and Partners High Net Worth Guide

        BANGOR and PORTLAND, Maine and BOSTON, Mass. – Verrill attorneys Kenneth P. Brier, Anya F. Endsley, Kurt E. Klebe, Mary McQuillen, Nathaniel S....
        Blog

        Update on Status of Maine Packaging EPR

        In December 2024, Verrill published a blog post, Unwrapping Maine's Gift to the Environment: A New Packaging Stewardship Program Set to Launch in...
        Blog

        Voluntary Benefits Move into the ERISA Litigation Crosshairs

        Employee-paid accident, critical-illness, cancer, and hospital-indemnity insurance have long occupied a quiet corner of employee benefit plan...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Maine’s New Employer Surveillance Law, 26 M.R.S. § 620-A

        Effective July 14, 2026 Maine employers that electronically monitor employees must comply with a new disclosure law effective July 14, 2026. Under...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Recognized by U.S. News as One of the Best Law Firms to Work for in 2026

        BOSTON, Mass., BANGOR and PORTLAND, Maine, GREENWICH and WESTPORT, Conn., – Verrill has been featured on U.S. News’ 2026 Best Companies to Work...
        Blog

        SECURE 2.0 Roth Catch-Up Rules and the 403(b) 15-Year Catch-Up: What Tax-Exempt Employers Need to Know

        Tax-exempt employers whose 403(b) plans offer catch-up contributions for participants age 50 and above should be well on their way to compliance with...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Quoted in Law360 on SIMAD Summer Camp Bankruptcy Sale

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving SIMAD Holdings and...
        Media Mentions

        Chris Tsouros Featured in Law360’s Coverage of Sports Real Estate Deals

        Verrill Partner Chris Tsouros was recently recognized in a Law360 article highlighting law firms involved in significant sports real estate projects...
        Blog

        What Maine’s New Employer Surveillance Law Means for Maine Employers

        Maine employers who monitor their workforce, whether through productivity software, GPS, call recording, or cameras, have a new compliance obligation...
        Blog

        Run Don’t Walk: The Implication of “While Supplies Last” Prize Promotions

        This month a big-chain grocery store has been offering daily mystery boxes during specific timed drops on a first-come, first-served basis, to users...
        Blog

        Maine’s Noncompete Statute is Reshaped for Health Care Workers: What You Need to Know

        Employers of individuals who are licensed under state law to perform, or provide, health care services in the State of Maine should be prepared for...