No Jab, No Job: Assessing the Religious Sincerity of Vaccine-Exemption Seekers

During the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of employees sought to avoid workplace vaccine mandates by asserting religious objections. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincere religious beliefs conflict with job requirements, such as vaccination, unless doing so would impose undue hardship. While some employees raised legitimate religious concerns, others invoked religion to avoid a mandate they opposed for political, philosophical, or personal reasons. Employers were thus forced into the fraught task of distinguishing sincere religious claims from insincere ones, a challenge that predictably led to a flood of failure-to-accommodate litigation. As these cases have moved through the courts, it has become clear that judges also struggle to assess religious sincerity. Judicial approaches vary widely, producing inconsistent and sometimes contradictory case law. These cases underscore the need for a coherent, principled framework for evaluating religious sincerity, not only in vaccine-exemption cases but whenever an employee seeks accommodation. This Article takes a first step toward that goal by cataloging the diverse methods courts use to analyze religious sincerity in vaccine-exemption cases. Courts diverge sharply on several issues, such as whether a claimant must tie a belief to a specific religious tenet, how to treat conduct inconsistent with a professed belief, and whether beliefs contrary to official doctrine can be sincere. But they show meaningful consensus on others, including the relevance of religious texts, consistent behavior, and documentation from religious leaders. This Article argues that these points of agreement should form the foundation of a framework for assessing religious sincerity, while areas of disagreement will require further development. Although religious sincerity determinations will always be challenging, a clearer structure grounded in existing consensus can better ensure that genuine religious belief receives the protection Title VII promises.