The COVID-19 pandemic brought workplace vaccination policies to the forefront, raising complex questions about religious accommodations. Over four years after the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, these policies remain in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) crosshairs. The EEOC’s settlement with Infinity Rehab, announced on May 20, 2025, demonstrates that decisions made during the pandemic continue to create challenges for employers—and provides important insight into the EEOC’s current enforcement priorities.
Background
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance unless it would cause an undue hardship on the employer’s business. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation for a qualified employee with a disability absent undue hardship.
Depending on the circumstances, Title VII or the ADA may require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations (absent undue hardship on the employer) for employees who do not want to get vaccinated because of either a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, or a disability.
Infinity Rehab’s Settlement with EEOC Highlights Ongoing Risks
Infinity Rehab, a rehabilitation and therapy service provider operating in 18 states, placed an occupational therapy assistant at a third-party facility that required all staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The employee requested an exemption from the vaccine mandate, citing sincerely held religious beliefs. While Infinity Rehab initially indicated it would accommodate the request, the third-party facility’s policy precluded any exceptions, leading to the employee’s termination. The EEOC found probable cause that Infinity Rehab, as the staffing agency, engaged in religious discrimination under Title VII. The settlement required Infinity Rehab to provide undisclosed monetary relief to the employee, update its religious accommodation policies and procedures, and conduct training for all staff and managers.
A Broader Pattern
This settlement aligns with the $110,000 settlement reached in EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc. announced in July 2024. Rather than engaging in a meaningful dialogue about the feasibility of a religious accommodation, management ignored the requests, then summarily denied them, and questioned the validity of the employee’s beliefs. The EEOC found these actions violated Title VII’s requirements for religious accommodation.
The EEOC has emphasized that a pandemic is not an exception for disregarding Title VII and its protection for religion.
The New “Undue Hardship” Standard for Evaluating Religious Accommodation Requests
Employers should note the new “undue hardship” standard regarding the burden required to deny a religious accommodation request, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in Groff v. DeJoy.
Prior to Groff, courts evaluated whether a requested religious accommodation imposed an “undue burden” under the test set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1977 case Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which held that a religious accommodation imposed an undue burden where it required an employer to bear “more than a de minimis cost.”
However, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff held that the appropriate test to determine whether a requested religious accommodation imposes an undue burden under Title VII is whether it “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business,” taking into account “all relevant factors at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” This is a significant change from the prior “more than a de minimis cost” test which was a lower bar for employers.
What This Means for Employers
The EEOC has seen a marked increase in religious discrimination charges in recent years, coinciding with the rise of vaccine mandates. Both Infinity Rehab and Hank’s Furniture stem from decisions made during the height of the pandemic. Employers still addressing Charges of Discrimination from that period should be aware that the EEOC continues to pursue these cases, even if company policies have since changed. Going forward, other vaccine mandates such as the flu shot will also likely face scrutiny by the EEOC.
Proactive Steps for Employers
- Assess requests for religious accommodations on a case-by-case basis. Employers should evaluate every employee’s request for a religious accommodation on its own merits, in light of the employee’s responsibilities and essential job functions. Employers, including those in the healthcare industry, must conduct an individualized analysis and engage in an interactive process to determine if it can provide a reasonable accommodation without incurring undue hardship.
Generally, the employer should assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if the employer becomes aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning the religious nature or sincerity of the religious belief, practice, or observance, the employer may make a limited factual inquiry and seek additional supporting information from the employee. If an employee’s objection to a vaccination requirement is based on an employee’s social, political, or personal preferences or on nonreligious concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine, an employer is generally not required to provide an accommodation under Title VII.
- Consider alternative accommodations. Determining that a requested religious accommodation poses an undue hardship does not end the analysis. If a requested accommodation is not feasible, employers can reduce risk by working with the employee to determine if other, less burdensome accommodations would be effective from the employee’s perspective. Potential alternative accommodations include, but are not limited to:
- permitting an unvaccinated employee to enter the physical workplace while wearing a face mask, working at a social distance from others;requiring the employee to be regularly tested for the disease the vaccination is designed to prevent;staggering employee shifts or making changes to the physical work environment to reduce physical contact with coworkers, patients, customers, or visitors;allowing the employee with the religious objection to telework; or
- reassigning the employee to a position in a different workspace.
- Document factors that support decisions. As courts require employers to assess specific facts at issue with every employee’s request, employers should be ready to show that they have done such an assessment—through accurate documentation and recordkeeping.
- Discuss accommodations with staffing partners. Staffing agencies and other third-parties who place employees with third-party employers should discuss requested religious accommodations with those partners. The staffing agency can be found liable for the decisions made by the third party, and it may be in the agency’s best interest to review any potential religious accommodations with the third-party before placing the employee.
Conclusion
The EEOC’s recent enforcement actions make clear that religious accommodations in the context of vaccine mandates remain a high priority. Employers—especially those in healthcare and staffing—should proactively review their policies, train managers, and ensure compliance with Title VII and EEOC guidance.
[View source.]
