Religious Creed Discrimination—Failure to Accommodate in California Workplaces
Introduction
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, practices, and observances. Discriminating against an employee for failing to comply with job requirements that conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs—without attempting accommodation—is unlawful. Gov. Code § 12940(l).
Legal Standard: Essential Elements
To establish a claim for religious creed discrimination based on failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show:
The defendant was a covered employer or entity under FEHA.
The plaintiff was an employee or applicant.
The plaintiff holds a sincerely held religious belief, observance, or practice.
The religious belief conflicts with a specific job requirement.
The employer knew of the conflict.
The employer failed to reasonably explore and implement accommodation alternatives or terminated/refused to hire the plaintiff to avoid the need for accommodation.
The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the job requirement was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse employment action.
The plaintiff was harmed, and the employer’s failure to accommodate was a substantial factor in causing that harm.
A reasonable accommodation is any adjustment that eliminates the conflict between the religious practice and the job requirement. The employer must act in good faith, but need not choose the employee’s preferred accommodation if another reasonable option exists. Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 345, 370 (1996).
Exploring Reasonable Accommodation
Employers should consider:
Excusing the employee from duties that conflict with their beliefs.
Allowing duties to be performed at alternate times or by other employees.
Reviewing available alternatives and documenting good-faith efforts.
Employers are required to initiate and participate in the accommodation process, considering all practical solutions before denying a request. Soldinger, 51 Cal.App.4th at 370.
Substantial Motivating Reason
Discrimination must be a substantial—not peripheral—reason for adverse action. This standard ensures liability attaches only to significant, consequential decisions. Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013).
Practical Guidance for California Employers
Employers should:
Train managers on religious accommodation obligations.
Encourage open discussions and review requests promptly and thoughtfully.
Document all accommodation efforts and the reasons for any denial.
Avoid adverse employment actions based on inflexible job requirements when reasonable alternatives exist.
Bottom Line
California law requires meaningful, good-faith efforts to resolve conflicts between religion and work. Employers who treat requests fairly and document accommodation steps are far less likely to face liability. Discrimination or inflexible enforcement of job rules—without considering religious practices—can result in significant legal risk.
Citations
Gov. Code § 12940(l); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 11060(b), 11062; Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 345, 370 (1996); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013).
