Second Circuit Raises the Bar for Religious Accommodation Claims

In a ruling that one law firm says “has just rewritten the rulebook for religious accommodation claims under Title VII,” the Second Circuit Court amended its July 2026 decision on motive for stating a prima facie case of failure to accommodate religion.

Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System centered around Jessica Bergin, who started work as a court officer for the New York State Unified Court System (UCS) in 2016.

When UCS introduced a COVID-19 vaccination mandate in September 2021, Bergin sought an exemption on religious grounds. Her request was denied, and Bergin was terminated for her failure to comply with the organization’s COVID vaccine requirement. She sued UCS under Title VII, asserting a single claim of failure to accommodate her religion.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that “there was no genuine dispute that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination,” according to court documents.

That decision rested in large part on statements made by the employer during discovery, as well as the court’s opinion that the employer did not demonstrate that granting an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship, court records noted.

UCS appealed the July decision, contending that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2015 case EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch refocused the analysis for religious accommodation claims.

In the more recent decision, the Second Circuit agreed with UCS. Judge Alison Nathan explained that the old Second Circuit test’s notice requirement and its lack of any explicit motive element, could not be reconciled with Abercrombie’s core holding that Title VII “prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.”

The ruling “meaningfully raises the bar and reshapes the analysis for religious accommodation claims litigated in the Second Circuit,” according to law firm Famighetti & Weinick.

“Employers defending these claims now have a clearer, motive-focused framework to argue toward at summary judgment,” the firm’s attorneys wrote, adding that the case is headed back for further proceedings.

“Employees and their counsel, meanwhile, may consider developing evidence that speak directly to the employer’s motivation in denying an accommodation, not just to notice and discipline.”