A new Fourth Circuit decision applying the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy standard shows that “undue hardship” still has teeth. The court sided with an employer that denied a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine policy, but its reasoning stretches far beyond vaccines or healthcare.
TL;DR: In an October 2025 Fourth Circuit decision, the court affirmed summary judgment for an employer that denied a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy. The court held that exempting the employee would have caused “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” under Groff v. DeJoy (2023). The decision confirms that undue hardship is not limited to financial expense; it includes real-world risks to safety, staffing, and operations.
Read the decision (PDF)
What the Court Actually Said About “Undue Hardship”
An employee in a patient-facing role requested a religious exemption from the employer’s vaccination requirement. HR reviewed the job duties, confirmed the position could not be performed remotely, explored alternatives, and invited the employee to apply for remote roles. When the employee declined and refused vaccination, employment ended.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer after applying Groff v. DeJoy’s clarified undue-hardship standard. The court found that accommodating the request would have caused both non-economic and economic burdens that met the “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” threshold:
- Safety risks: The position required close contact with medically vulnerable individuals. The employer documented that unvaccinated staff posed a higher risk of transmitting COVID-19, which could endanger others in the workplace.
- Operational strain: Each outbreak triggered lockdowns, staff reassignments, and the suspension of key programs or activities, disrupting normal operations and requiring extra protective measures.
- Financial impact: Lockdowns forced the employer to pause admissions and hire temporary replacements at higher cost.
- Alternatives considered: HR evaluated remote work, masking, and weekly testing, but the court credited evidence that these options were less effective at reducing transmission.
- Aggregate burden: More than 200 employees had requested similar exemptions, meaning the safety and staffing impact would multiply if granted collectively.
The court emphasized that the Groff standard requires employers to evaluate all “relevant factors” in light of their specific business operations. “Costs” may include not only money but also safety risks, workflow disruption, or reliability concerns. Those principles apply to all types of workplaces, not just healthcare settings.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- Think beyond COVID. The same reasoning applies to scheduling requests, dress or grooming exceptions, or refusals to perform certain job duties.
- Document the facts. Identify concrete burdens, financial or operational, that show why an accommodation would be more than a minor inconvenience.
- Evaluate alternatives. Courts expect employers to consider options, explain why they do not work, and document that process.
- Ground your decisions in evidence. Courts expect employers to base “undue hardship” determinations on concrete, well-documented facts about their business rather than speculation or guesswork.
The Bottom Line
This Fourth Circuit ruling offers an early look at how courts may apply Groff’s clarified “undue hardship” test in real workplaces. It demonstrates that when employers can show genuine, documented effects on safety, staffing, or operations, they are on stronger footing to deny a requested accommodation.