Update Applicable to:
All employers

What happened?
On March 1, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its guidance and answers regarding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic’s interaction with anti-discrimination laws.

What are the details?

Employers may ask employees to explain how their religious beliefs conflict with COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
The guidance discusses the non-exhaustive factors to be considered when evaluating the sincerity or religious nature of a belief. Expanding on its previous guidance, the EEOC makes clear that employers “may ask for an explanation of how the employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances conflict with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement,” and refers readers back to Section 12 of its Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination.

Many employers have had to grapple with whether an employee’s belief is indeed “religious” (and thus protected) or merely “political” (and thus unprotected). Importantly, the updated guidance states that there may be some overlap between the two: “[O]verlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an isolated teaching.”

Employers must continue to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis and assess individual credibility when deciding whether to grant a reasonable accommodation.

Undue hardship may not be speculative or hypothetical.
The updated guidance also speaks to how employers should assess “undue hardship” on the business, adding in an important detail: in addition to warning against relying on “speculative” hardship, employers also cannot rely on “hypothetical” hardship when faced with an employee’s religious objection but, rather, should rely on objective information.” Accordingly, employers should carefully analyze the undue hardship on the business using objective, factually specific factors, and should not rely upon remote, speculative, or hypothetical possibilities to satisfy the “undue hardship” standard.

A reduction in pay or loss of benefits is not a reasonable accommodation if there are alternative accommodations.
While employers are not required to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation, the guidance notes that an employer’s accommodation will not be “reasonable” if it requires that the employee “accept a reduction in pay or some loss of a benefit or privilege of employment (for example if unpaid leave is the employer’s proposed accommodation) and there is a reasonable alternative accommodation that does not require and would not impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business.” This is a key clarification from the previous guidance, and employers proposing unpaid leave as an accommodation should first consider alternative accommodations.

As a best practice, employers should discuss the revocation of a religious accommodation with the employee before taking action.
The guidance notes that the obligation to provide religious accommodations is a continuing obligation, but also one that allows for change depending on evolving circumstances. An employee’s sincerely held belief may change, and the employer has the right to discontinue a previously granted accommodation if it is no longer for a religious purpose or it subsequently imposes an undue hardship on the employer. The guidance further clarifies that, “as a best practice, employers should discuss with the employee any concerns it has about continuing a religious accommodation before revoking it.” Thus, employers should consider engaging in a dialogue with employees prior to revoking any reasonable accommodations. Such conversations may provide an opportunity to discuss alternative accommodations or how to account for changes in circumstance.

For more information, please see the links below:

EEOC’s Guidance and Answers

Section 12 of the Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination

Article

What do employers need to do?
Employers should review the links provided above and per our law firm source, Mintz, employers should continue to monitor these updates and assess how they might change company policy or practice.

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.