California Civil Rights Department Publishes Religious Discrimination and Accommodations Fact Sheet and Ninth Circuit Addresses Undue Hardship Defense in Context of COVID-19 Vaccines

Both California and federal laws prohibit discrimination in employment based on religion or religious creed and require employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious beliefs or observances unless doing so would create an undue hardship. California law, codified in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”), further prohibits discrimination against employees for requesting accommodations involving religious practices regardless of whether the employer granted the request.

“Religious creed” includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observances, or practices, which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his, her, or their life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally-recognized religions. It encompasses all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, including religious dress and grooming practices. Religious dress and grooming practices are construed broadly to include the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, or any other item that is part of an individual observing a religious creed, and all forms of head, facial, and body hair that are part of an individual observing a religious creed.

Discrimination may be established by showing: (a) employment benefits have been denied, in whole or in part, because of an applicant’s or employee’s religious creed or lack of religious creed; or (b) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s religious creed despite being informed by the applicant or employee or otherwise having become aware of the need for reasonable accommodation.

A reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the conflict between the religious practice and the job requirement and may include, but is not limited to, job restructuring, job reassignment, modification of work practices, or allowing time off in an amount equal to the amount of non-regularly scheduled time the employee has worked in order to avoid a conflict with his or her religious observances. Unless expressly requested by an employee, an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires segregation of an employee from customers or the general public.

In determining whether a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship, several factors may be considered, including but not limited to, the size of the relevant establishment or facility with respect to the number of employees, the size of budget, and other such matters; the overall size of the employer or other covered entity with respect to the number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; the type of the establishment's or facility's operation, including the composition and structure of the workforce or membership; the type of the employer's or other covered entity's operation, including the composition and structure of the workforce or membership; the nature and cost of the accommodation involved; reasonable notice to the employer or other covered entity of the need for accommodation; and any available reasonable alternative means of accommodation.

This past week, in Williams v. Legacy Health (9th Cir. May 6, 2026), Case No. 24-5977, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the undue hardship defense in the context of federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), applying the United States Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023) and the Ninth Circuit’s subsequent ruling in Petersen v. Snohomish Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025).

In Goff, the high court held that employers must prove more than a de minimis cost to demonstrate undue hardship under Title VII. Rather, to establish the undue hardship defense, an employer must show the burden is substantial in the overall context of its business. Subsequently, in Petersen, the Ninth Circuit held that employers are not limited to financial burdens when demonstrating substantial costs of accommodation. Rather, costs can include non-monetary burdens, such as “health and safety costs” and “operational burdens.” Moreover, such costs need not be realized prior to raising an undue hardship defense; a “risk of undue hardship” will suffice, provided it is “realistic” and “not merely conceivable or hypothetical.” Finally, the court explained that it will not judge an employer by the actions of other employers; instead, the test “boils down” to undue hardship in the context of a “particular business.”

The Williams case involved a challenge to an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine policy. The plaintiffs in that case were current and former hospital employees who held varying positions (physician assistant, respiratory therapist, nurse, technician) and all worked in close contact with either patients, staff, or both. They each requested and were denied religious exemptions from the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy, which was adopted in the summer of 2021 during the height of the Delta variant of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following their denials and eventual terminations (for all but one), the plaintiffs each sought relief for religious discrimination pursuant to Title VII. Their cases were consolidated.

In response to the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for religious discrimination based on the hospital’s failure to accommodate their religious beliefs but also concluded that the hospital established its affirmative defense of undue hardship by presenting evidence that the requested accommodation would impose substantial risk to patients and staff, thereby jeopardizing the hospital’s ability to operate and provide care in a safe and effective manner.

On review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and concluded that the hospital demonstrated, in the context of the pandemic and the variant at issue when the religious exemption requests were denied, that there were realistic concerns that could reasonably pose substantial costs, including the risk that the plaintiffs would become ill resulting in staff shortages, the risk that the plaintiffs’ potential infections could expose other staff who were needed to treat patients, and the risk of transmission to the hospital’s patients themselves. Notably, to establish its affirmative defense and overcome the plaintiffs’ prima facie case of religious discrimination, the hospital presented evidence, including an expert witness, confirming the risks were realistic and not merely conceivable or hypothetical.

Although the Williams case did not address California’s FEHA specifically, it provides a helpful framework regarding religious accommodations and the corresponding undue hardship affirmative defense.

The California Civil Rights Department, which enforces the FEHA, also recently published a Religious Discrimination and Accommodations at Work Fact Sheet, accessible here. The fact sheet provides an overview of California law and employer obligations regarding religion and religious creed both prior to hire and during employment, including reasonable accommodation obligations. The Fact Sheet provides a helpful refresher for employers to ensure ongoing compliance with the FEHA to address religious accommodations and prevent discrimination.

This legal update and any use of its information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained on this website should be considered legal advice for any specific employer or employment situation. Consult legal counsel before taking any action as a result of information contained herein.