One of the most fundamental rights enjoyed by every American is freedom of religion. Enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, all Americans are guaranteed the individual right to freely practice their religious beliefs without interference from the government. This right is so important to our society that, through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress extended certain religious protections in the workplace by prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion.

As part of prohibiting religious discrimination, Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. For many decades, however, an employee’s right to a religious accommodation at work was severely limited by how the courts interpreted Title VII’s “undue hardship” exception. Unlike in the context of disability-related accommodations, historically, employers only needed to demonstrate a “de minimis cost,” meaning a very minor financial expense or slight operational burden, to prove an undue hardship and thereby deny a religious accommodation request.

This changed in 2023. In Groff v. DeJoy, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers must grant a requested religious accommodation unless they can show that doing so would result in “substantial” increased cost or burden on the operation of their business. In other words, to prove “undue hardship” and deny a religious accommodation request post-Groff, an employer must now show that the burden of granting the request rises to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level. Before reaching the question of undue burden, however, an employee must first request an accommodation and establish that the accommodation relates to a belief that is both “sincerely held” and “religious in nature.”

On Aug. 31, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court covering West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, provided a cautionary tale on how such requests should be viewed and handled under today’s legal landscape.

Wilkins-Bailey v. Essity Professional Hygiene North America, LLC is a case about mandatory vaccination policies in the workplace. Such policies became commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic once effective vaccines became available to the public in 2021. And those workplace policies generated considerable controversy on political and, at times, religious grounds. In Wilkins-Bailey, the employee sought a religious-based exemption from her employer’s mandatory vaccination policy, articulating various religious objections to vaccination as well as her belief that her body is a temple and that vaccines are unethical. Her employer denied the request, concluding that her objections to vaccination were “secular concerns” rather than religious, and further rejected her rationale for accommodation regarding the use of stem cells in vaccine development as factually inaccurate. Concluding that granting the request would create an “undue hardship,” the employer denied it and later terminated the employee after she confirmed she would not obtain the required vaccinations.

The employee sued, among other reasons, for failing to accommodate her religious beliefs. The facts of the case revealed that the employee belonged to certain religious groups that discouraged vaccination, and that she had generally refrained from vaccination throughout her life on the belief that it “is God’s law” that “I have to be protective of my temple.” However, the facts also revealed, through the employee’s own sworn testimony, that her religious denomination did not outright prohibit vaccination or require her to reject it, and that the ultimate decision to be vaccinated was a personal one. Based on this testimony, the trial court dismissed her case without reaching the question of undue hardship, finding that her vaccine-related beliefs, while sincerely held, were not in fact “religious in nature” because they did not “go to an essential part of a religious faith.”

The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court concluded that an employee’s sincerely held belief is religious in nature for purposes of an employer’s duty to accommodate under Title VII if it is “an essential part of her religion in her own scheme of things.” The Court further observed that “beliefs can be religious even if they are illogical and internally inconsistent.” And although the employee’s rationale for refusing vaccination was at times inconsistent and included secular concerns about the safety of vaccines and discriminatory practices in medicine, she nonetheless consistently connected her refusal to her religious belief that it “is God’s law” that she must “be protective of her temple.” The Court therefore found that a jury would need to decide whether the employee’s accommodation request related to a sincerely held religious belief, and if so, whether the request presented an undue hardship under the standards outlined in Groff.

So, what are the takeaways from this case, and what should an employer do when faced with an accommodation request based on an employee’s professed religious preferences? Each accommodation request, religious or otherwise, must be evaluated on its individual facts, the specifics of the request and the employer’s ability to grant it. However, these general tips can help you navigate them like a pro:

• Employees must request an accommodation before an employer has a duty to accommodate. However, an employee’s request does not require any “magic words,” so long as the employer knows that the requested accommodation is for a religious reason.
• Assume that the stated beliefs to be accommodated are sincerely held by the employee, unless you have very strong proof to the contrary. It is almost always the right decision to assume the sincerity of the expressed beliefs.
• Assume that the accommodation is religious in nature, so long as the employee can articulate some subjective connection between their religion and the request. As demonstrated by the Wilkins-Bailey case, employers should assume that the request is religious in nature, even if the employee offers a secular rationale or contradictory information to justify it.
• In addition to allowing employees to engage in religious expression at work, accommodations can take many forms, such as flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and modifications to workplace policies or practices. And accommodations can change over time.
• Undue hardship to deny a requested accommodation requires proof that the burden of granting the accommodation is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business, taking into account all relevant factors. These factors are necessarily specific to the employer, the employer’s business and the practical impact of the accommodation in light of the employer’s nature, size and operating costs. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to unwillingly do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.
• Coworker objections based on hostility to religion, customer fears or prejudices are not undue hardships.
• If an employer cannot grant the specific accommodation requested due to undue hardship, the employer should continue to engage with the employee to determine if there are other alternative accommodations that might satisfy both the employee’s need for an accommodation and the employer’s undue hardship concerns.

As always, given the fact-intensive nature of accommodation requests and the ever-changing laws governing their handling, it is a good idea to involve competent legal counsel early in the process to avoid pitfalls that can lead to lawsuits, such as the Wilkins-Bailey case.