Religious Accommodations and Undue Hardship: Appeals Court Provides Guidance for Municipal Employers

More than six years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, litigation arising from pandemic-related employment decisions continues to work its way through the judicial system. While vaccination mandates and other COVID-related workplace restrictions are largely behind us, case law continues to provide guidance to municipal employers on broader issues that remain relevant today.

In Jangl v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, decided October 15, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the state’s denial of an employee’s request for a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, finding that the requested accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on the Department of Children and Families (DCF). 

The employee was a DCF social worker whose responsibilities included conducting home visits, transporting children to medical appointments, attending court proceedings, and responding to emergencies. His position required regular in-person contact with children and their families, including those who are medically vulnerable. Following the executive branch’s implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine requirement in 2021, the employee requested an exemption based on religious belief. He proposed working remotely when possible, wearing a mask during in-person interactions, and undergoing weekly COVID-19 testing. DCF denied the request based on concerns that the proposed alternatives would not address the health and safety risks associated with COVID-19 transmission and his responsibilities. The employee resigned in lieu of becoming vaccinated and ultimately brought a religious discrimination claim under G.L. c.151B, §4(1A). The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed.

Under G.L. c.151B, §4(1A), employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The court recognized that if an employee’s absence would unduly compromise the public health or safety, that accommodation could be unreasonable. It recognized further that if an employee’s presence is needed to alleviate an emergency, his absence could be considered an undue hardship.

In affirming the Superior Court’s decision, the Appeals Court focused on the employee’s job responsibilities and the impact that granting the exemption as an accommodation could have on DCF’s operations. The Court recognized that the duties required close contact with vulnerable children and could not be performed entirely remotely. It considered DCF staffing shortages and the disruption to essential services if employees or the individuals they served became ill. The state supported its determination with evidence from agency officials and a medical expert who addressed the risks associated with the requested exemption and why the proposed alternatives were not sufficient. The Appeals Court held that the state had established that granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on DCF. 

Municipalities, particularly those providing public safety and emergency response services, can regularly face staffing limitations and operational requirements that can make certain accommodations difficult to implement. The decision recognizes that those considerations may be relevant to determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship. For example, a requested religious accommodation that would interfere with minimum staffing requirements, limit an employee’s ability to respond to emergencies, or otherwise affect the municipality’s ability to provide essential services may present legitimate undue hardship concerns.

However, the municipality must be able to identify the specific operational impact of the requested accommodation rather than relying on general concerns about staffing or public safety. In this case, DCF’s decision was supported by evidence regarding the employee’s particular responsibilities, the risks associated with the proposed accommodation, and the limitations of the alternatives the employee offered. Municipal employers should similarly document the reasons an accommodation cannot reasonably be provided, including considerations of alternative arrangements. Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder that municipalities must evaluate requests for religious accommodations individually, taking into account both the employee’s request and the municipality’s operational needs, and they are not required to grant accommodation that would impose an undue hardship on their operations, provided that the hardship can be substantiated.