Royal

Updated Guidance on Religious Objections to Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

October 27, 2021

As the world continues to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have begun to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of their employment. This has undoubtedly raised many questions an employer’s ability to mandate that their employees get vaccinated. On October 25, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released updated guidance to address questions about Title VII and religious objections to employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects an employee from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Likewise, Title VII requires employers to accommodate employees’ “sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances absent undue hardship.” This includes the requirement that employers consider requests of employees who seek to be exempt from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement based on a sincerely held religious belief.


Employees who wish to be exempt from a vaccine mandate due to a sincerely held religious belief must inform their employer of this. Employers must then demonstrate that “undue hardship” is not required to accommodate the request. It is important to note that Title VII does not require employers to consider requests for exemption based on social, political, or economic views, or personal preference of the employee. The ability to grant or deny a requested exemption rests heavily on the elements of “undue hardship” and a showing of a sincerely held religious belief.


If you have any questions about the elements of the undue hardship requirement, religious and other Title VII exemptions to employer COVID-19 vaccination mandates, or other employment issues generally, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: