In Reis v. Noem, (SD FL, Aug. 24, 2026), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Title VII alleging disparate treatment on the basis of religion and failure to make reasonable religious accommodations. Plaintiff , a Brazilian-American, is a member of União do Vegetal (UDV), a Christian Spiritist denomination. As part of her religious practices, she uses ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea. In its 2006 Gonzales decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under RFRA, the government needs to show a compelling interest in order to prosecute for sacramental use of ayahuasca by UDV members.
Plaintiff was provisionally offered a position as a Customs and Border Protection Officer by the Department of Homeland Security. However, the offer was withdrawn when plaintiff told examiners about her use of ayahuasca. Plaintiff sued. The court said in part:
Defendant ... argues that its drug-use policy constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the Withdrawal Notice because 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b)(6) authorizes disqualification for "illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances, without evidence of rehabilitation." ... Without a more developed factual record, the Court does not see this argument as a reason to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims.... Because classifying Reis's sacramental ayahuasca use as per se "illegal" raises tension with Gonzalez, ..., not sufficiently addressed by Defendant, and because Defendant offers no other argument to buttress its theory on this point, the Court declines to dismiss these claims on the pleadings. Reis has plausibly alleged a disparate treatment claim....
Count II states a plausible claim for failure to make a reasonable accommodation under Title VII. Reis alleges that her sincere religious practice of consuming sacramental ayahuasca tea as a UDV member conflicted with CBP's blanket drug-use policy, that she informed CBP of this conflict and its lawful basis, and that CBP withdrew the offer without engaging in any interactive process or offering any accommodation whatsoever.... The burden of demonstrating undue hardship therefore falls on Defendant.... Defendant offers only generalized assertions that accommodating Reis would create "safety or security" risks.... Generalized assertions are not evidence of a "substantial" burden....
