As discussed, here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy raised the bar for employers seeking to deny a religious accommodation based on undue hardship. The case clarified that employers must demonstrate a substantial burden on business operations, not merely a more-than-minimal inconvenience.  

A more recent Ninth Circuit decision provides an important example of how courts may apply that standard in practice. In Lewis-Williams v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of six former employees who alleged their employer failed to accommodate sincere religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the employees presented sufficient evidence to support their religious accommodation claims and that the employer failed to carry its burden of proving undue hardship. According to the court’s summary, the employer failed to demonstrate that its proposed alternatives to vaccination would have created a sufficiently substantial hardship on its operations.  

The decision is noteworthy because it reinforces a principle that has become increasingly important following Groff: an employer generally cannot rely on assumptions, generalized concerns, or a preference for one workplace solution over another. The Ninth Circuit explained that even if an employer establishes that a particular policy is the most effective option, that fact alone does not necessarily render less restrictive alternatives unreasonable. For example, the employer argued that vaccination was the most effective means of reducing workplace transmission, relied on public-health guidance supporting vaccination requirements, and raised concerns regarding the feasibility of alternatives such as remote work and unpaid leave. The court nevertheless concluded that the employer had not established that those alternatives would have created a sufficiently substantial hardship. 

The Lewis-Williams case serves as a reminder that religious-accommodation requests arise in many forms beyond vaccination requirements. Requests may involve schedules, prayer breaks, religious dress and grooming practices, food-handling issues, or participation in workplace activities. Agricultural operations often face unique operational challenges, including seasonal labor demands, harvest schedules, crew transportation logistics, employee housing arrangements, remote worksites, and food-safety obligations. However, those operational realities do not eliminate the employer’s obligation to conduct an individualized assessment of each request. 

As Lewis-Williams demonstrates, the outcome of an accommodation dispute may ultimately depend on an employer’s ability to support its position with evidence rather than assumptions. If an accommodation is denied, decision-makers should be able to identify and document the operational, safety, staffing, financial, or compliance concerns involved. Evidence of actual costs, coverage limitations, productivity impacts, safety risks, or regulatory conflicts will generally be more persuasive than speculative concerns or generalized statements regarding inconvenience. 

The decision also aligns with guidance previously discussed here, which emphasized the importance of evaluating each accommodation request individually, avoiding assumptions about religious beliefs or practices, discussing potential accommodations with the employee, and remaining open to alternative solutions.  

Employers should consider the following best practices when evaluating requests for religious accommodation: 

• Review each request individually and avoid applying blanket rules. 

• Engage in a timely, good-faith interactive discussion with the employee to understand the nature of the request and possible accommodation options. 

• Consider alternative accommodation(s) and seek legal counsel before concluding that a request cannot be granted. 

• Carefully document the analysis supporting any claim of undue hardship, including operational, safety, staffing, or financial impacts. 

• Reevaluate accommodations when job duties, business conditions, or workplace circumstances change. 

• Train supervisors and managers to recognize accommodation requests and promptly involve Human Resources or legal counsel when appropriate. 

As religious accommodation litigation continues to evolve after Groff, employers should ensure that accommodation decisions are based on individualized analysis, supported by documentation, and grounded in demonstrable business realities.