Background
BART adopted a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring employees to be fully vaccinated by December 13, 2021, unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. Of 181 employees who requested religious exemptions, BART found 70 potentially eligible for accommodation but concluded that none could be accommodated without undue hardship. Employees who remained unvaccinated were required to retire, resign, or face termination.
Six former employees pursued claims under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging that BART failed to accommodate their sincere religious objections. After a prior jury deadlocked on BART’s undue-hardship defense, a second jury rejected that defense and awarded the six employees a combined $7,824,580. The district court denied BART’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The employees conditionally cross-appealed the dismissal of their Free Exercise claims, and Ryan Rivera also challenged the failure to reinstate him.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Because the employees’ prima facie accommodation cases were undisputed, BART bore the burden of proving that accommodation would impose an undue hardship. The court held that an employer cannot satisfy that burden merely by showing that an accommodation would be less safe than vaccination; under Groff v. DeJoy, the resulting burden must be substantial, excessive, or unjustifiable. Public-health guidance carries special weight but is not conclusive, and BART did not place the guidance on which it relied into evidence.
Substantial evidence permitted the jury to find that masking, distancing, remote work, or other measures could have accommodated these particular employees without undue hardship. Their jobs generally involved limited close contact with coworkers or the public, and BART identified no evidence that they were unable or unwilling to follow precautions. The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence, and counsel’s three violations of an evidentiary order did not warrant a new trial because the district court sustained objections and instructed the jury appropriately.
The court dismissed the employees’ conditional Free Exercise cross-appeal as moot because affirmance gave them relief for the same harm. It also found no plain error in awarding Rivera front pay instead of reinstatement, particularly because his counsel conceded that he had elected front pay. Judge Ryan D. Nelson separately concurred to criticize the district court’s Free Exercise analysis, but the panel did not decide that issue.
Key Takeaways
- A religious accommodation is not an undue hardship merely because it is less safe than an employer’s preferred policy; the employer must show a substantial, excessive, or unjustifiable burden.
- Public-health guidance is important but not dispositive, and an undue-hardship defense remains a fact-specific inquiry tied to the employer’s operations and each employee’s duties.
- A jury could reasonably find no undue hardship where the employees had limited close-contact duties and could use masking, distancing, remote work, or similar precautions.
Why It Matters
The decision limits employers’ ability to establish Title VII undue hardship as a matter of law solely by invoking general safety concerns or the superior effectiveness of vaccination. Employers must present evidence showing that proposed accommodations would impose a substantial burden in the specific workplace and positions at issue.
The ruling also illustrates the deference appellate courts give jury findings on fact-intensive accommodation disputes. Although the concurrence raised significant questions about individualized religious-exemption processes under the Free Exercise Clause, those constitutional questions remain unresolved in this case.