In Matilde M. v. Burgum, (EEOC Federal Sector, May 15, 2026), the EEOC in an appeal from a finding by the Bureau of Indian Education, held that the Bureau had engaged in religious discrimination when it denied religious accommodations to three employees who refused on religious grounds to comply with the agency's Covid vaccine mandate. The employees cited their religious belief in the sacredness of human life and their religious practice of rejecting substances developed using human fetal cells obtained through abortion.
The EEOC said in part:
After careful review, we conclude that testing and masking were a possible alternative reasonable accommodation for Complainants. And we find the Agency has not met its burden to establish by preponderant evidence that testing and masking would have imposed an undue hardship on its operations. Moreover, we find the Agency acted discriminatorily when it subjected Complainants to an unduly adversarial accommodation process....
At the barest minimum, a process to handle religious accommodation requests needs to provide employees with a non-adversarial forum.... The process the Agency imposed was adversarial to the point that we can persuasively infer an underlying discriminatory, even disdainful, motive. The Agency singled out employees with religious objections related to the use of human fetal cells for particularly disfavored treatment. They were summoned to an inquisitorial panel to be quizzed and lectured on their medical history and knowledge of other medicines derived from human fetal cells. We are persuaded that the crucible of invasive gotcha-style questioning was a thinly veiled, and discriminatory, attempt to expose supposed hypocrisy and convince Complainants to recant their objections....
This is not to say that an employee’s asserted religious views evade all scrutiny. Measured, non-adversarial inquiry may be appropriate to help the employer fully understand the contours and sincerity of the employee’s religious beliefs and practices. But ...the Agency’s inquiry as an employer is ... limited to whether the purported religious conflict “reflects an honest conviction.”... [T]he “veracity [i.e., the correctness] of [the employee’s] religious belief” does not meaningfully bear on the honesty of the conviction....
The EEOC issued a press release announcing the decision.
