The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review whether employers may deny religious accommodations, when granting those accommodations could conflict with state regulations and expose the employer to penalties.
The cases, Does v. Hochul and Braccia v. Northwell Health Systems, involved former New York healthcare workers who challenged the denial of their requests for religious exemptions from New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The mandate, which has since been rescinded, required covered healthcare employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualified for limited exemptions.
The workers argued that federal anti-discrimination law should require employers to provide religious accommodations even if doing so would conflict with state requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, finding that the healthcare providers had shown that granting exemptions could result in violations of state regulations, financial penalties, or the loss of operating licenses.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the Second Circuit’s rulings in place and avoids, for now, a broader review of how federal religious accommodation protections apply when state laws or regulations are involved.
The issue stems from the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which changed the standard employers must meet when claiming that a religious accommodation would create an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under Groff, employers generally must show that an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” to justify denying an employee’s request.
Since that decision, courts have continued to evaluate what circumstances qualify as an undue hardship. One ongoing question is whether an employer may rely on state laws or regulations when arguing that a requested accommodation cannot be provided.
In a dissent from the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the Court should have addressed whether state requirements can limit protections provided by federal civil rights laws. He expressed concern that allowing state rules to determine when accommodations are too burdensome could weaken protections under federal anti-discrimination statutes.