Employees Challenged COVID-19 Vaccine Rules on Religious Grounds. The Federal Court Rejected Their Claims.

Can an employer violate federal law by requiring employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, or, after granting a religious exemption, requiring them to wear masks and undergo testing?

A newly published federal appeals court decision provides an important reminder: an employee’s personal opposition to a workplace health policy is not necessarily the same as a legally protected religious objection.

In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by commercial aviation workers who challenged their employers’ pandemic-era vaccination, masking, and testing policies. The court also issued an unusually sharp rebuke of plaintiffs’ counsel for submitting briefs containing numerous nonexistent, AI-generated case citations.

What Happened in the Atlas Air Case?

Atlas Air and Flight Services International required employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations unless they obtained a medical or religious exemption.

Employees who received exemptions were instead required to:
• Wear a mask while working; and
• Undergo periodic COVID-19 testing.

The plaintiffs alleged that they objected to the vaccination policy on religious grounds. They also argued that the masking and testing requirements imposed on exempt employees were unreasonable and burdensome.

Importantly, however, the lawsuit did not allege that the plaintiffs were terminated or laid off. Some plaintiffs allegedly received less desirable or lower-paying flight assignments, while others either complied with the masking and testing requirements or ultimately received the vaccine.

Why Did the Religious Discrimination Claim Fail?

The plaintiffs asserted that Atlas Air created a hostile work environment based on religion in violation of Title VII.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Atlas Air acted with hostility or discriminatory intent toward the employees’ religious beliefs.

In fact, the court observed that the company’s policy expressly allowed employees with sincere religious objections to obtain exemptions from vaccination. Those employees were instead required to mask and test periodically.
The problem was that the plaintiffs did not adequately connect their objections to masking and testing to a religious belief.

According to the opinion, their objections to masks were primarily that masks were ineffective or political symbols. Their objection to testing was described only as a generalized complaint that testing imposed “substantial burdens.” The plaintiffs did not explain what those burdens were or why they were religious in nature.

The court therefore found no plausible allegation that the employer was motivated by hostility toward religion.

Personal, Political, and Medical Objections Are Not Automatically Religious Objections

Title VII protects sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances. It does not automatically protect every personal, philosophical, medical, or political objection to a workplace policy.

Employees do not necessarily need to use technical legal language when requesting an accommodation. But they should clearly communicate that:

1. A workplace requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief or practice;
2. They need an exception or modification because of that conflict; and
3. The requested accommodation would address the religious conflict.

Once an employer has notice of the conflict, Title VII generally requires a reasonable accommodation unless the employer can demonstrate undue hardship.

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer cannot establish undue hardship merely by showing a minimal inconvenience or cost. The burden must be substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.

What Does This Mean for California Employees?

The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling is not binding on California courts, but it still offers useful guidance.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act also requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate known religious beliefs and practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. California law protects religious beliefs, observances, practices, dress, and grooming.

For employees, the lesson is straightforward:

Be clear about the religious nature of the conflict.

An employee should not assume that the employer will understand why an objection is religious, particularly where the employee’s written explanation focuses largely on medical safety, political disagreement, personal autonomy, or skepticism about a policy.

Document:
• The religious belief or practice involved;
• How the workplace rule conflicts with it;
• When the employer was notified;
• The accommodation requested; and
• How the employer responded.

For employers, the case demonstrates the importance of evaluating accommodation requests individually rather than assuming that every request is either automatically valid or automatically invalid.

The Bottom Line

Akerlund v. Atlas Air does not hold that employers may disregard legitimate religious objections to workplace vaccine policies.

Instead, it demonstrates that employees must plead facts showing that:
• The belief or objection was religious in nature;
• The employer knew about the religious conflict;
• The challenged conduct was connected to religion; and
• The employer failed to provide a legally sufficient accommodation or otherwise discriminated because of religion.

A workplace policy may feel unfair, burdensome, political, or medically questionable to an employee. But those concerns do not automatically establish a religious discrimination claim.
The distinction between a personal objection and a protected religious conflict can determine whether a lawsuit survives its earliest stages.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Antonyan Miranda, LLP.

Employment laws vary significantly by jurisdiction, and the outcome of any legal matter depends on the unique facts, applicable law, procedural posture, and available evidence. The discussion of court decisions in this article is intended to provide general information and should not be relied upon as a prediction of how any court will rule in another case or jurisdiction.

If you believe your workplace rights may have been violated, you should consult with a qualified employment attorney promptly to obtain legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting based solely on the information contained in this article.
Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.

#EmploymentLaw #ReligiousDiscrimination #TitleVII #ReligiousAccommodation #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw #FEHA #WorkplaceRights #COVID19EmploymentLaw #AIinLaw #LegalEthics