Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Religious Accommodation Meets Transgender Inclusion – Updated Guidance for Employers
Religious-accommodation requests are getting harder for employers to navigate, especially when they collide with policies meant to support transgender employees. The Seventh Circuit just reminded us that employers cannot lean on complaints or speculation alone. A jury will decide whether denying an accommodation is justified by a true “undue hardship.”
TL;DR: A federal appeals court revived a Title VII religious-accommodation claim after finding factual disputes about whether a teacher’s “last-name-only” practice created an undue hardship. The school argued the practice stigmatized transgender students and undermined its mission of inclusivity. The court said those complaints might not be enough at summary judgment. The hardship must be substantial, objectively reasonable, and caused by the accommodation itself.
The conflict: religion versus transgender identity
A teacher objected on religious grounds to a policy requiring use of transgender students’ chosen names. The compromise of calling all students by their last names quickly became controversial.
- Transgender students reported feeling alienated, upset, and dehumanized.
- Other students and teachers said the practice created awkwardness.
- Some faculty and students reported no issues at all.
The school rescinded the accommodation and treated the teacher’s resignation as final. He sued, arguing his sincerely held religious beliefs were not accommodated.
How the court applied Groff and the sincerity question
Religious-accommodation claims follow a burden-shifting framework. An employee must first show a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a workplace rule. At that point, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that accommodating it would impose an undue hardship.
After Groff, undue hardship requires more than inconvenience. Employers must demonstrate that the accommodation creates a substantial burden in the overall context of their business. Subjective complaints of discomfort are not enough unless they rise to the level of objectively reasonable harm, and the employer must show that the harm was caused by the accommodation itself. Hypothetical risks or generalized concerns are not sufficient.
The Seventh Circuit also emphasized that good faith alone does not shield an employer. Even well-intentioned decisions cannot substitute for proof that an accommodation would cause real, demonstrable hardship.
Finally, the duty to accommodate arises only if the religious belief is sincerely held. In this case, sincerity was a disputed fact because the teacher once used transgender students’ chosen names at a ceremony, which he admitted conflicted with his beliefs. Like undue hardship, that question will go to a jury.
Employer takeaways
- Document the evidence. Keep detailed records of what actually happened, who reported it, and how the accommodation affected the workplace. Did productivity slip? Did performance measures change? Did it interfere with teamwork or the delivery of services? Being able to show specifically whether and how the accommodation disrupted work is key.
- Prove causation. It is not enough that employees or students felt upset. You must connect the impact directly to the accommodation. For example, show that a customer stopped doing business, a student dropped a class, or coworkers could not perform their jobs because of the accommodation. Without that clear link, the claim of undue hardship is weak.
- Avoid speculation. Hypothetical risks or generalized concerns will not meet the Groff standard. If you believe an accommodation could expose you to legal risk, have evidence that the accommodation itself is likely to trigger that risk, not just that it might cause “tension” or “confusion.”
- Good faith is not enough. Acting with good intentions or relying on honest reports does not relieve an employer of the duty to prove undue hardship. The law requires evidence of an actual, substantial burden caused by the accommodation, not just a well-meaning decision.
- Lead with values. Religious-accommodation disputes can be divisive, but they should not overshadow the broader goal of creating a workplace where people feel respected and supported. Reinforcing inclusivity is not just about compliance, it is about morale, retention, and reputation. Employers that stay consistent in living their values tend to weather these conflicts more effectively.
One last thing
These cases are not going away. After Groff, the odds of trial are higher because whether an accommodation creates an undue hardship is now a fact-heavy inquiry. Judges are less likely to dismiss these claims at summary judgment, leaving juries to decide. Careful documentation, objective evidence, and consistent policy enforcement are your best defenses.