Sufficiency of Religious Belief for Reasonable Accommodation May be Based on Employee's Statements in Making the Request

When may the employer question whether an employee’s request for an accommodation is due to a sincerely held religious belief? While the sincerity of the belief cannot be successfully challenged by the employer on summary judgment, an employee’s proffered explanations at the time of the request may cause the trier of fact to conclude that it is not sincerely held. The question arose in the context of a hospital that required its staff to be fully vaccinated against COVID. The plaintiff, a new hire as a surgical tech, requested a religious exemption on the grounds that her body is a temple of God, that the vaccine might alter her body unlike traditional vaccines, and that proceeding with the vaccine would be a “sin against my conscience.” Her request was denied on the grounds that it relied on patently false information about the effect of the vaccine and “demonstrably false information cannot be a basis for a religious accommodation.” The plaintiff was fired and she sued. 

The hospital argued that her belief was secular, not religious. It relied upon statements in her deposition that her religion was Voodooism but that Voodooism is not a religion but rather a spiritual connection to God. Contradictory statements in a party’s deposition are best addressed to the trier of fact, not resolvable at summary judgment, according to the Appeals Court, in reversing the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of the hospital. But the Court left open the question whether the charge of discrimination can be supported by the plaintiff’s statements at deposition or must rest on her pretermination statements to her employer as to the reason for the request for accommodation. Since the Court held that summary judgment should have been denied, it assumed without deciding that the statements in the accommodation request submitted to the employer “must be sufficient in themselves to show that her beliefs were religious in nature.” The case is Jeune v. UMass Memorial Health Care System, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 95 (2025). 

The hospital argued that if the judgment in its favor was reversed (as it was), the Court would be creating a blanket privilege that would allow employees to avoid employer requirements merely by stating that “they prayed and received guidance.” Based on this decision and other cases cited by the Appeals Court, it is likely that that is the case before trial.