The EEOC Updated Its COVID Vaccination Guidance and Confirmed What We Already Knew About Political Objections to Vaccination

Written on .

Yesterday, the EEOC updated its Guidance regarding COVID-19, specifically addressing employee religious objections to employer vaccination policies. What we learned is something we pretty much already knew; at least, it is the advice that we have been giving to clients, namely, that a political objection to vaccination is not protected by Title VII.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes a right for job applicants and employees to request an exception, called a religious or reasonable accommodation, from an employer requirement that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. If an employer shows that it cannot reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances without undue hardship on its operations, the employer is not required to grant the accommodation.

The EEOC reminds us that definition of “religion” under Title VII protects nontraditional religious beliefs that may be unfamiliar to employers. While the employer should not assume that a request is invalid simply because it is based on unfamiliar religious beliefs, employees may be asked to explain the religious nature of their belief and should not assume that the employer already knows or understands it. By contrast, Title VII does not protect social, political, or economic views, or personal preferences. Thus, objections to COVID-19 vaccination that are based on social, political, or personal preferences, or on nonreligious concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine, do not qualify as “religious beliefs” under Title VII.

That’s right, political objections to vaccines are not protected by Title VII. We already knew that, but it is nice to hear from the EEOC.

The EEOC also tells us that when making a request for a religious accommodation, employees do not need to use any “magic words,” such as “religious accommodation” or “Title VII.” However, they need to notify the employer that there is a conflict between their sincerely held religious beliefs and the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Then the employer and employer must engage in the “interactive process” to determine if a reasonable accommodation exists.

It is important for employees to understand that a request for a religious exception from a vaccination requirement does not mean that the employee receives an automatic pass. In some cases, the employer may not be able to accommodate an employee’s refusal to take a vaccination without creating an undue hardship to its business. Courts have found Title VII undue hardship where, for example, the religious accommodation would impair workplace safety, diminish efficiency in other jobs, or cause coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Pro Tip: Any employer that requires its employees to be vaccinated (either because the law requires it or otherwise) should develop a form that employees and applicants can utilize to request a religious or medical exemption to vaccination.

Kathleen J. Jennings
Principal | Email: kjj@wimlaw.com
Kathleen J. Jennings is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. She defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

communication bubble

E21: Employee Communication with Special Guest Louise Hughes

In this episode, we talk with Wimberly Lawson Wright Daves & Jones' office manager Louise Hughes about the importance of effective em...
Bruce r. thompson courthouse and federal building, south virginia street, reno, nv, usa

Supreme Court Gives New Grounds for Challenging Federal Regulations

Over the years, an increasing part of this country's legal system has been based not on laws passed by legislators or the Congress, but o...
Mask pattern on blue background

Recent Trends in Covid-19 Litigation

Many businesses purchase business interruption insurance to protect the company against disasters.  Almost 2,000 lawsuits have been filed...
Black Lives Matter sign, outdoors

Black Lives Matter Buttons and Bans Result in Various Legal Rulings

Cases are starting to come out now dealing with the subject of whether an employer can ban buttons pertaining to the Black Lives Matter (...
old man walking dogs outdoors

"Old White Man" Allowed to Sue Employer's Diversity and Inclusion Plan

In DiBenedetto v. AT&T Services, Inc., a 58-year-old White male defeated the defendant AT&T's efforts to dismiss his case in conn...
union sign, outdoors

E20: Union Activity in the Workplace

In this episode, host Thom Jennings and attorney Kathleen Jennings discuss union activity in the workplace and how an employer can spot i...
  • Home
  • Articles
  • The EEOC Updated Its COVID Vaccination Guidance and Confirmed What We Already Knew About Political Objections to Vaccination

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts


Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2022 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM