Keeping the Faith: Undue Hardship as Applied to Religious Accommodation Requests

This two-part blog series examines issues related to employee religious beliefs and practices at work. Part 1 offered an overview of religious-based accommodation requests and an employer’s obligation to review and respond to such requests, noting that employers do not have to automatically grant all employee religious accommodation requests.

Instead, two legal principles should be applied when considering such requests: whether the employee’s accommodation request is supported by a bona fide religious belief, and whether the request will pose an undue hardship for the employer.

Part 1 covered how the courts have analyzed the bona fide belief standard. This blog looks at how the courts have defined what could be an undue hardship for an employer.

Overview

Employers do not have to accommodate an employee’s religious-based accommodation request if it poses an “undue hardship” on their business. Courts have ruled that undue hardships on employers are “a complete defense” to employee claims of failure to accommodate—see White v. University of Washington—but employers should bear in mind that undue hardships are frequently litigated.

What Is an Undue Hardship for an Employer?

Employers can show undue hardships by pointing to both economic and non-economic business costs. For example, in addition to showing how a requested accommodation’s financial impacts pose an undue hardship, employers can also show undue hardships when an employee’s requested accommodation requires violating the law or an enforceable agreement, giving the requester preferential treatment that discriminates against other protected classes, or unreasonably risking employee or public safety.

Whether accommodations impose undue hardships is a fact-specific inquiry and courts consider the requested accommodation and its practical effect considering the employer’s size, nature, and operating costs. Several cases discuss this exception to the employer’s religious accommodation requirement.

In Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court re-evaluated long-standing law and ruled that undue hardships require an employer to show that an employee’s requested religious accommodation places a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business. Groff further clarified that at a minimum “hardship” means “something hard to bear,” and “undue” means a burden that rises to an excessive or unjustifiable level.

Finally, Groff notes that even if an employee’s requested accommodation poses an undue hardship, the employer must first consider whether other accommodation options are possible before denying the employee’s request. MRSC’s blog, New Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies Undue Hardship Standard, Makes It Harder to Prove (2023) offers more information about the Groff decision.

Recent Case Law

Several recent cases address employer undue hardships, including Rosa v. City of Issaquah (2025), Henry v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2025), Suarez v. State (2024), and Trueblood v. Valley Cities (2024). The first two cases (Rosa, Henry) were in the context of employee requests for religious-based exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Rosa v. City of Issaquah

In Rosa v. City of Issaquah, a city police officer requested a religious-based exemption from the city’s COVID vaccine requirement. The city extended the officer’s vaccination deadline with other work adjustments in the interim, but it ultimately terminated her for remaining unvaccinated. The officer sued and the court ruled in the city’s favor.

Because the officer “worked in group settings, constantly interacted with coworkers and the public, including in emergency and life-saving situations, and could not always social distance,” the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed with the city that the officer’s request to continue working unvaccinated posed unreasonable public health risks and an undue hardship on the city’s police operations. Courts concluded similarly in Nilsen v. University of Washington Medical Center (2024) and Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue (2025).

Henry v. Department of Fish and Wildlife

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Henry v. Department of Fish and Wildlife ruled that an employer’s words alone won’t prove an undue hardship.

In the case, department biologist Henry sought a religious exemption from the department’s COVID vaccine requirement. The department claimed an undue hardship by asserting that Henry’s job description envisioned in-person contact as an essential job function that required vaccination.

In contrast, the court held that an employer’s “bare assertions” about an unvaccinated employee’s essential job functions are insufficient to prove an undue hardship. Instead, the employer’s actions toward the employee must show that in-person contact is an essential function of the employee’s job for the employer that will be substantially burdened if the employee remains unvaccinated.

Suarez v. State

In Suarez v. State, a state-certified nursing facility refused employee Suarez’s requests for work schedule adjustments to accommodate religious holidays and practices, arguing that the requests conflicted with collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provisions that governed employee scheduling and leave.

The facility ultimately terminated Suarez for work attendance issues, and Suarez sued for failure to accommodate. The Washington State Supreme Court sided with the facility, holding that requested accommodations are undue hardships if they force the employer to violate the CBA rights of other employees.

The court also importantly held that the Groff case (noted above) remains the proper standard for evaluating requested religious holiday accommodations for undue hardship—not the undue hardship factors listed for purposes of Washington public employee’s entitlement to unpaid leave for religious observance in WAC 82-56-020.

Trueblood v. Valley Cities

Trueblood v. Valley Cities involved a counseling center employee’s requested accommodations from the center’s gender-expression policies—specifically the use of preferred pronouns.

Based on Christian beliefs, employee Trueblood asked the center for a policy exemption allowing her to use clients’ and coworkers’ names in place of their preferred pronouns that did not match their gender assigned at birth and to decline to work with clients that use preferred pronouns.

The center argued that granting either of these accommodations required discrimination against the gender expression of some of the center’s clients and employees and ultimately terminated Trueblood over the issue. Trueblood sued and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled for the center.

The court found that Trueblood’s requested accommodations would pose an undue hardship because the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination based on gender expression or identity. Accordingly, granting Trueblood’s requested accommodations imposed an undue hardship because “at the very least” they could expose the center to potential unlawful discrimination claims from the center’s clients and staff.

Conclusion and Resources

The legal principles and cases covered in this series reveal that accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of employees in the workplace is a complicated process involving many fact-specific factors and considerations. Local governments should consult their policy and legal advisors for specific guidance in developing policies and practices to effectively address such workplace requests.

For more information on WLAD, reasonable accommodation, and the undue hardship principle, see the following resources:

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Harassment in the Workplace
• Hiring Procedures
• Paid and Unpaid Holidays