Second Circuit sheds light on COVID vaccine-related religious discrimination claims

In 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision concerning the evaluation of the sincerity of employees’ objections to vaccine mandates. The ruling highlights several key evidentiary standards applied to evaluating employers' efforts to accommodate employees' religious beliefs. The Second Circuit emphasized that there are only “rare” circumstances where employers may successfully rebut the sincerity of their employees' religious beliefs, and that jurors, not courts, should decide whether employees sincerely object to employers' mandatory vaccine policies based on their religions.

Background

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. employers instituted mandatory vaccination policies (either voluntarily or pursuant to legal requirements). The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was one such employer.

Shortly after the policy was implemented, two employees alleged that the Federal Reserve discriminated against them by denying their requests for religious exemptions from its mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy and correspondingly terminating their employment. After filing suit, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Reserve, and both plaintiffs appealed.

The Second Circuit's opinion

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of one plaintiff’s claim, finding she failed to demonstrate a sincere religious belief and supported her claim with “only a sham issue of fact” that no reasonable jury could find sincere.

On the other hand, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal as to the other plaintiff because sufficient evidence existed to allow a jury to decide whether that plaintiff maintained a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. The Second Circuit explained that:

1. Employees' mixed motives do not defeat the sincerity of their beliefs: Juries may find that employees have both secular and religious objections to vaccines and may only act on their religious objections when seeking exemptions.
2. Inconsistent testimony does not preclude summary judgment: The Second Circuit noted that, while the second plaintiff’s inconsistent testimony could negatively affect her credibility at trial, it could not be used against her to prevent her from overcoming summary judgment, especially when some evidence may confirm the existence of a sincere religious objection to vaccines. Such inconsistent behavior is not dispositive because “even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”
3. A religious leader’s refusal to sign a vaccine exemption form is not determinative of the sincerity of religious beliefs: Despite the second plaintiff’s own pastor refusing to sign her religious exemption form, the Second Circuit still held that her claim should survive summary judgment because she based her religious discrimination claim on her own religious beliefs, and not the views of her religious leaders.

Guidance for employers

• The Second Circuit emphasized that there are only “rare” cases where it will grant summary judgment and dismiss employees' claims of religious discrimination based on challenges to the sincerity of their religious beliefs.
• Employees' inconsistent behaviors and mixed motives alone will not, by themselves, mandate that employers will be entitled to summary judgment because employees' deviations from their own religious practices are insufficient to defeat religious discrimination claims.
• Employers should document the interactive processes they participate in with their employees as to their requests for religious exemptions to be able to better challenge the sincerity of their religious beliefs. However, courts will monitor employers' conduct to ensure that they are not being overly intrusive into the employees' religious beliefs.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit’s opinion stresses that, except for “rare” cases, summary judgment will be unavailable to employers who challenge the sincerity of their employees’ religious objections to vaccine mandates. As a result, now is a prudent opportunity for employers to evaluate their own internal vaccine mandates and processes for responding to employees’ requests for religious exemptions. Completing these evaluations, especially with legal oversight, will help businesses identify and rectify potential issues with their religious accommodation request policies and avoid prolonged litigation in the future.