When an employee requests a religious accommodation, here’s what employers should do

Federal law requires many private employers to accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing so would impose a substantial burden on the business. How to do this properly is among the many questions small-business owners face each day.

Recent federal guidance provides a useful framework.

In 2025 the Department of Labor offered internal guidelines for federal employees which “encouraged” agencies to adopt a “generous approach” to approving religious accommodations and to balance prioritizing employee needs “while maintaining operational efficiency.”

Although the rules are primarily for federal workers, they still impact many businesses, particularly ones with federal contracts or that otherwise do business with the government. The Justice Department followed this summer with broader guidance directing federal agencies on how to apply religious-liberty protections when enforcing laws and administering grants and contracts.

In my opinion as an employer, these rules are worth incorporating as policies for any business.

Two local lawyers I spoke with agreed. But they both stressed that their clients’ policies on religious accommodation in the workplace should be as flexible as possible, presume sincerity, and be well documented.

Employers should engage in genuine, documented efforts to find workable solutions before concluding that an accommodation is impossible, said Lisa Gingeleskie, of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in New Providence. Solutions might include offering flexible scheduling, voluntary shift swaps, floating holidays, vacation time, and unpaid leave.

“Employers must consider all available accommodation options, not merely assess whether one particular option is feasible,” Gingeleskie said. “But the accommodation obligation does not require them to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation if a reasonable alternative exists.”

Employers should look at each employee and situation individually, said Katharine Fogarty, a partner at Kaufman Dolowich in Philadelphia.

“It’s important to go back and look at your policies to ensure that they comply, and that you don’t just have a blanket policy that won’t allow for any sort of accommodations,” Fogarty said. When a specific accommodation can’t be made, she said, “that doesn’t mean that we just say no and shut down the process.”

As business owners, we’re not religious experts. It’s important to presume that your employee is being sincere in their request and that their religious belief is genuine.

“The fact that a belief may be unfamiliar, uncommon, or not formally recognized even by a religious organization does not mean it’s not protected,” Fogarty said.

To that end, it’s usually not a good idea to demand proof or to challenge an employee’s sincerity without a genuine, objective basis for doubt.

“Demanding official clergy letters or other formal religious documentation may be problematic, as courts have found that an employee’s own written explanation may be sufficient,” Gingeleskie said.

That doesn’t mean that you, as an employer, shouldn’t have a healthy degree of skepticism.

Warning signs as to the legitimacy of a request could include behavior that contradicts their stated beliefs — for instance, their faith prevents them from working on Sundays, but they work Sundays when premium pay is available. Another sign could be the request for a particularly desirable benefit that may have a secular motivation, such as permanent remote work over and above what someone’s religion may require.

Even informal requests need to be taken seriously, Gingeleskie said, and an employee “does not need to use any particular words or invoke a statute by name.” She also warns against automatically denying requests because of staffing needs, costs, and coworker objections. And it’s important not to get too personal.

“The appropriate response is to only ask the employee to explain the religious nature of the practice and how it conflicts with the work requirement,” she said.

Fogarty adds that employers should avoid requiring disclosure of religious beliefs or accommodation needs during the hiring process.

“When they’re hired, it’s not [information] they’re required to provide,” she said. “The employee can also raise it at any time during their employment.”

Employers should carefully log the entire religious-accommodation process and not merely the final decision, Gingeleskie and Fogarty agree.

Gingeleskie recommends documenting the employee’s request and the religious-work conflict, any discussions and communications with the employee, each accommodation considered, why particular options were workable or unworkable, the facts and costs supporting any undue-hardship conclusion, and the accommodation offered or reason for denial.

“Inadequate documentation of the employer’s accommodation efforts, communications with the employee, and undue hardship analysis can be fatal to an employer’s defense if a lawsuit is brought down the road,” she said.

If an employer fails to engage on a good-faith basis in the process to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious belief, they could expose themselves to significant liability, both lawyers warned.

For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan had to pay more than $12 million to an employee in 2024 for not allowing her to exempt herself from vaccinations due to her Catholic beliefs. A nonprofit organization faced a $1.8 million verdict in federal court this year after terminating a Muslim employee for refusing to remove her niqab while teaching.

“You can’t just outright say no because you think that it’s going to create an issue or it’s going to create more work for you,” Fogarty said.