This might help employers figure it out.
Now that employers are becoming more aggressive in requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, we are also seeing a lot of requests from employees for religious exemptions.
The guidance issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that employers can require employees to be vaccinated without violating federal law. However, they must try to accommodate employees who are unvaccinated due to a medical condition that precludes vaccination (which could include pregnancy) or a religious objection to the vaccine.
It's complicated
Religious exemptions are complicated. Here’s why.
First, “religion” is not limited to the “big three” of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It also includes generally recognized belief systems that are less common in the United States, and also “individualized” beliefs that are not part of any generally recognized system.
As if that weren't complicated enough, it also includes individual interpretations of generally recognized faiths. Even within a relatively structured, hierarchical faith like the Catholic Church, individuals may come to different conclusions about whether they should be vaccinated. (Pope Francis says yes, but Bishop Strickland says maybe not.)
There also appears to be diversity of viewpoint about COVID vaccinations among Jews (see here), and Evangelical Christians (see here).
Second, the religious belief must be “sincerely held” to be entitled to accommodation. Employers are supposed to start out with the assumption that the employee’s religious belief is sincere.
And here is where the vaccine issue becomes even more complicated. Because many people still do not want to be vaccinated, a number of websites have popped up like crabgrass in your beautiful, green, carpet-like springtime lawn, providing free form letters to employees who don't want to be vaccinated and need a religious excuse.
Let’s say Frank doesn’t want to be vaccinated because he sincerely believes (1) the vaccines were rushed into distribution, (2) vaccination is too “Big Brother,” and (3) Frank never trusted that scoundrel Bill Gates anyway.
None of these are reasons that would qualify Frank for a religious exemption from the vaccine.
However, because the religious exemption standard is so loosey-goosey, Frank might be able to claim it, whether he’s an actual believer or not. First, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Second, unlike a request for Sundays off, which might be revoked if he's caught going to the Tipsy Bar & Grille instead of church, a phony request to be exempt from vaccination is less likely to be "caught."
Thus, for employers, the unfortunate answer is there is no easy way to screen out the bogus requests for religious exemption from the legitimate ones. But here are a few tips that I hope will help.
Before you start
Know your employees, or consult with people who do (such as their direct supervisors). Does their history indicate that they really do have sincere religious beliefs, or moral/ethical beliefs that rise to the level of being “religious” in nature? Does the supervisor know that Margaret goes to worship services, takes prayer breaks during the work day, and gives every indication that she is a sincere believer? Does the supervisor know that Jason has never been to a worship service in his adult life, makes fun of his co-workers who believe in “the Great Sky Fairy,” and conducts himself in his personal life as if he is his only boss?
This personal knowledge won’t settle every “sincerity” question, but it can help a great deal.
Familiarize yourself with the canned forms available on the internet. This knowledge may come in handy later. Some examples are available here, here, and here.
STEP ONE: Get a narrative
Ask the employees seeking religious objections to provide a written narrative explaining their objection to the vaccine and the religious basis for their objection. Recognize that some employees will have difficulty with this step, not because their beliefs are not sincere, but because they have literacy or language issues that make it difficult for them to put anything down in writing. For the same reason, there may be employees who use the internet forms, not because they are faking it, but because the forms express their thoughts better than they are able to.
That said, use of an internet form letter should be viewed as a rebuttable red flag.
Letters from ministers, priests, rabbis, or imams* are great, but don’t rule out an employee’s sincere belief just because the employee is unable to provide one. As already noted, not every believer belongs to a place of worship, and there is diversity of belief even within established religions and denominations.
*I apologize in advance, but I can't resist: A minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam, and a horse with a long face walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this? Some kind of joke?"
STEP TWO: Pick the "low-hanging fruit"
If the narrative supports the request for religious accommodation, then accept it as a valid request, and go on to the next step of determining whether you can accommodate without undue hardship.
If the narrative clearly does not support the request for religious accommodation (for example, if it shows that the employee’s objection is entirely political or based on fears about side effects*), then deny the request.
*These may be legitimate reasons to oppose vaccination, but they are not religious in nature.
STEP THREE: Talk to the "high-hanging fruit"
At this point you should be left only with employees who are “not clearly entitled and not clearly unentitled” to religious accommodation. With this group, follow up with interviews, either in person, by videoconference, or by phone. One purpose of the interviews is to be fair to employees who have legitimate religious objections but are less adept at expressing themselves in writing. And, yes, the other purpose is to ferret out employees who are faking it.
To determine whether the employee’s objection is “religious” in nature, ask yourself the following --
- During the interview, did the employee continually veer off into the politics of COVID or vaccines?
- Does the employee’s real concern appear to be the safety of the vaccines?
- Does the employee’s real concern appear to be that mandatory vaccination is an infringement on his or her personal freedom?
- Does the employee seem to genuinely believe it would be a "sin" to get the vaccine?
- Can the employee reasonably articulate why he or she believes that vaccination would be sinful?
To determine whether the employee’s religious objection is “sincerely held,” ask --
- Is the objection consistent with what you or the employee’s supervisors have observed from this employee in the past, when COVID vaccination was not an issue?
- Are there any specific facts about this employee that cause you to believe that the religious belief is not sincere? (Again, the default should be to accept the employee's belief as sincere.)
Based on what you’ve learned, decide whether you are going to consider the religious objection to be legitimate (in which case, go directly to “can we accommodate without undue hardship?”), or not legitimate (in which case, just say “no”).
STEP FOUR: Document like the wind!
You don’t have to wait until Step Four to start your documentation. Just be sure you do it! Documenting the reasons for denials are especially important, but approvals are important, too, in case you need comparative evidence. The documentation should include the employee’s request, any supporting information submitted by the employee, the reason you determined that the request was or was not "religious" in nature, the reason you determined that the employee's belief was or was not "sincere," and any other information that might come in handy in the event of a legal challenge.
Ain't life in the '20s grand? I love it more each day.
Shanah tovah to our Jewish readers, and happy Labor Day Weekend to all!
Image credits: Judge Judy from flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jena Fuller. All others from Adobe Stock.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010