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

        Alerts and Newsletters

        Can AI Pass the Doctor Test? FDA Considers Physician-Inspired Evaluation of GenAI Devices and Other Regulatory Measures

        AI is entering healthcare with indomitable will. It promises to increase efficiency, reduce administrative burden (which healthcare providers so...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Attorney Annabel Rodriguez Named Top Women of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez has been recognized as a Top Women of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, and will be...
        Blog

        What Employee Benefits Lawyers Do (and How to Make the Best Use of Us)

        What do employee benefits lawyers do all day and how can clients make the best use of them? This post offers an overview of the kinds of things...
        Media Mentions

        Bloomberg Law Quotes Robert Keach on Expanded Access to Small Business Reorganization

        Verrill attorney Bob Keach was recently featured in Bloomberg Law, discussing legislation that would raise debt limits for bankruptcy relief and...
        Blog

        Phil Bartlett to Step Down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission

        On September 15, 2026, Governor Janet Mills announced that Phil Bartlett will step down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC)...
        Published Works

        Jay McCormack and Michael Fee Co-Author AHLA Article on Skin Substitute Enforcement Trends

        Verrill Partners Jay McCormack and Michael Fee co-authored an article for the American Health Law Association's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Health Care & Life Sciences Attorney Elpida Velmahos

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to announce that Elpida Velmahos has joined the firm’s Health Care & Life Sciences Group as an...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Litigation & Trial Attorney Emma Pooler

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill is pleased to announce that Emma Pooler has joined the firm’s Litigation & Trial Group as an Associate, resident in...
        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...