Second Circuit Clarifies Standard for Religious Accommodation Claims Under Title VII

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified the standard employees must meet to assert claims for failure to provide religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On September 15, 2026, the Second Circuit amended a decision it issued earlier this year in Bergin v. N.Y. State Unified Court System. The case involved an employee’s religious accommodation claim under Title VII. The employee had requested a religious exemption from the employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. After the employee failed to complete a supplemental form as requested by the employer’s vaccine exception committee, the committee denied her request, and she was subsequently fired.

In its original decision, the Second Circuit held that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., an employee asserting a claim for failure to accommodate a religious belief must demonstrate (1) that she actually required an accommodation of her religious practice, and (2) that the employer’s desire to avoid the actually required prospective accommodation was a motivating factor in (3) an adverse employment decision.

In amending this decision, the Second Circuit clarified that this three-part test does not establish a “heightened discriminatory motive requirement.” As the court explained in a new footnote:

“In stating that Abercrombie abrogated the absence of a ‘motive’ requirement in our prior test, we do not suggest that a new, heightened discriminatory motive requirement exists in failure-to-accommodate cases. That is to say, an employee asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim need not show that an employer’s denial of an accommodation was motivated by discriminatory animus against religion. But, consistent with Abercrombie, the employee does have to show that the denial was ‘because’ of the employee’s religion as opposed to, say, the employee’s failure to timely provide sufficient information.”

Following this decision, employers should continue to review their accommodation policies and train managers and Human Resources personnel to ensure that each accommodation request is evaluated individually, that the employer engages in a meaningful interactive dialogue before denying any request, and that the process is well documented.

Employers with questions about how the decision may impact their employment practices should contact any of our employment attorneys.