A recent federal appeals court decision involving six former employees of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) offers an important reminder to both employers and employees about religious accommodations in the workplace. Although the case arose in California and is not binding on New Jersey courts, it involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers, in appropriate circumstances, to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
In Lewis-Williams v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict totaling approximately $7.8 million in favor of six former BART employees who objected to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on their religious beliefs.
The case illustrates an important point that extends well beyond COVID-19 vaccine policies: when an employee requests a religious accommodation, an employer should carefully evaluate the individual request rather than simply assuming that an accommodation is unavailable.
What Happened at BART?
BART adopted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in 2021. Employees were required to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for an exemption, including an exemption based upon a sincerely held religious belief.
Several employees requested religious exemptions. BART ultimately determined that it could not accommodate the requests without undue hardship. Six former employees later brought claims alleging, among other things, that BART had failed to accommodate their religious beliefs.
A jury agreed with the employees and awarded them a combined $7,824,580.
BART appealed.
In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld the jury’s verdict, concluding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s determination that BART failed to meet its burden of establishing undue hardship.
An Employer Cannot Simply Say an Accommodation Is Too Difficult
One of the most important aspects of the decision concerns the employer’s obligation to support an undue hardship defense with evidence.
Under Title VII, an employer may be excused from providing religious accommodation when the accommodation would create an undue hardship in the conduct of its business. But an employer cannot necessarily satisfy that burden merely by pointing to generalized concerns or stating that its existing policy is the safest or most effective approach.
The question is whether accommodating the particular employee would impose the level of hardship required under federal law.
In the BART case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the jury had sufficient evidence to find that BART failed to establish that burden.
Religious Accommodation Requests Require Individual Attention
This case is also a useful reminder that religious accommodation issues should not be handled as a simple yes-or-no policy question.
When an employee raises a conflict between a workplace requirement and a sincerely held religious belief, an employer should carefully consider the request, the employee’s particular job responsibilities, the proposed accommodation, and the actual effect that accommodation would have on the workplace.
Employers should also document the process used to evaluate the request and the reasons supporting the ultimate decision.
For employees, the case demonstrates why it can be important to clearly communicate the religious conflict to the employer and participate in the accommodation process.
What Does This Mean for New Jersey Employers and Employees?
The BART decision came from the Ninth Circuit, which does not include New Jersey. New Jersey is within the Third Circuit, so the BART decision is not binding precedent on New Jersey federal courts.
Nevertheless, Title VII applies nationwide, and the case provides a useful example of evidence that may become important when an employer denies a requested religious accommodation and later argues that providing it would have created an undue hardship.
New Jersey employees may also have protections under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), depending upon the circumstances.
The broader lesson is not limited to vaccines. Religious accommodation disputes can arise from scheduling requirements, dress and grooming policies, religious observances, workplace duties, and other employment practices.
Employers should avoid automatically rejecting a request simply because granting an accommodation would require some inconvenience or a departure from the employer’s usual practice. Employees, meanwhile, should understand that an accommodation request does not automatically require an employer to grant the employee’s preferred solution. These cases are often highly dependent upon the individual facts.
Questions About Religious Discrimination or Workplace Accommodations in New Jersey?
If you believe you have experienced religious discrimination at work, have been denied religious accommodation, or are an employer trying to understand your obligations under New Jersey and federal employment laws, we can help you evaluate the circumstances.
Please contact Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. of Hanlon Niemann & Wright, P.C. at (732) 863-9900 or email him personally at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com. We are available to discuss your employment law questions in person, via video conference, or by phone.
Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Employment Law Attorney
Source Attribution: This blog was inspired by reporting from LAWS.com Legal News, “Ninth Circuit upholds jury ruling against BART on vaccine mandate,” by David Chen, Civil Rights & Litigation Desk, published September 11, 2026. We thank LAWS.com Legal News for bringing this recent employment law decision to our attention.