Your employer's flu shot policy is a religious accommodation question

Your employer's flu shot policy is a religious accommodation question

The COVID-19 vaccine mandates that generated the last several years of litigation are mostly gone. The legal obligation they tested is not.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs and practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. That requirement did not arrive in 2021 and it did not leave in 2023. It applies to any condition of employment that collides with a sincere religious belief.

This distinction matters for a practical reason. If you were terminated in 2021, the filing deadlines have likely run. If you are in a dispute right now, they have not.

The obligations that are still live

A few situations we see, or expect to see, regularly.

Annual influenza vaccination requirements. Many healthcare systems required annual flu shots long before 2020 and still do. The same religious objections raised in the COVID cases, including objections grounded in the use of fetal cell lines in development or testing, can apply. These are current policies with current deadlines.

Ongoing testing requirements. Some employers retained periodic testing obligations. In Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance, two of the five plaintiffs had actually been granted vaccination exemptions conditioned on weekly testing, and objected to the testing as well. A testing requirement can present its own conflict.

Sabbath and religious holiday scheduling. The most litigated religious accommodation issue in American employment law, and still the most common. If your shift schedule conflicts with religious observance, that is an accommodation question.

Dress and grooming standards. Head coverings, beards, and religious articles regularly conflict with uniform and appearance policies.

Required participation. Trainings, oaths, ceremonies, or employer programs that an employee cannot participate in for religious reasons.

Conditions of licensure or credentialing that overlap with employment requirements, which come up often in healthcare and can involve more than one decision-maker.

What the recent decisions actually established

The COVID cases were not really about vaccines. They were about a prior question: when does an employee's stated objection count as religious at all, and who decides?

Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc., 108 F.4th 1017 (7th Cir. 2024) held that a request based at least in part on religious belief or practice is a religious accommodation request. That principle is not vaccine-specific. It applies to a scheduling request that mentions both faith and childcare, or a grooming accommodation that mentions both religion and skin sensitivity.

Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024) held that beliefs "do not have to be uniform across all members of a religion or acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others." Also not vaccine-specific. Employers do not get to reject an accommodation request because the employee's theology looks unusual, or because a supervisor cannot find the belief in a denominational statement. Ringhofer also confirmed that the Minnesota Human Rights Act reaches failure-to-accommodate claims, which matters for every MHRA case, not only mandate cases.

Both were reversals at the pleading stage, returning those cases to the district court. Neither established a right to an accommodation. What they established is who gets to decide whether a belief is religious, and the answer is not the employer.

The part employers usually win on

Honesty requires saying this clearly: even a sincere religious belief in genuine conflict with a workplace requirement does not automatically entitle you to an accommodation.

The employer can show that accommodating you would impose an undue hardship on the business. That analysis is fact-intensive and it is frequently where these cases are actually decided. It is also the stage most of the mandate cases never reached, because they were dismissed on the threshold questions first.

So the recent decisions do not mean you win. They mean you get to have the argument.

If you have a live dispute

This is the group with the most to gain from acting quickly, and the group we most want to hear from.

If you have requested a religious accommodation and been denied, or you are looking at a policy that will require you to choose between your job and a sincere belief, the situation is live. The deadlines have not run. And what happens in the next few weeks, what you put in writing, how the request is framed, whether you engage in the employer's process, will shape the case far more than anything a lawyer can do a year later.

That is the practical difference between calling early and calling late. Early, we can help you build a record. Late, we are working with whatever record exists.

Filing deadlines are generally 300 days for a Title VII charge with the EEOC in Minnesota and one year under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, subject to exceptions that depend on your facts.

The first call is free, and we will tell you honestly what we think, including if we think you don't have a case.

---

---