A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit offers timely guidance for employers navigating religious accommodation requests, particularly those arising from workplace health and safety policies. In Colson v. Hennepin Cnty., No. 25-1095 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 2026), the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Title VII religious discrimination claims brought by two public employees who challenged their employer’s COVID‑19 vaccination and testing policy. The ruling underscores that not every employee objection framed in religious terms will survive even the earliest stages of litigation.
The Court’s Decision
The Colson case involved an employer, Hennepin County, that required employees to either be vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID‑19 testing, with multiple testing options available and testing time treated as paid work time. Two employees sought religious accommodations that would excuse them from complying with the testing and vaccination policy under Title VII. One employee was ultimately terminated after her initial accommodation, consisting of 12 weeks of unpaid leave, was granted and later revoked, while the other accepted an accommodation of saliva testing in lieu of standard nasal swab testing and remained employed.
Both employees sued under Title VII, alleging failure to accommodate their religious beliefs. The federal district court for the District of Minnesota dismissed their claims, and the employees appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
As to the first terminated employee, the Eighth Circuit held that her complaint failed at the first step of a prima facie religious accommodation claim. To state a prima facie claim based on an employer’s failure to accommodate religious beliefs, an employee must show that (1) “they have a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement”; (2) “they informed [their employer] of this belief”; and (3) “they were disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement of employment.” Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Jones v. TEK Indus., Inc., 319 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir. 2003)). Although courts do not question the validity or sincerity of religious beliefs when reviewing a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must still allege facts showing that the challenged employment requirement actually conflicted with a specific religious belief. The Court held that the former employee’s generalized assertion of “God-given rights”, free will, or bodily autonomy, without explaining how those beliefs compelled or guided refusal to comply with the policy, was not enough.
As to the second employee, the Court focused on the absence of an adverse employment action. The employee had accepted saliva testing as an alternative accommodation and did not allege that she was terminated, disciplined, or subjected to a disadvantageous change in the terms or conditions of employment. Although the employee alleged that testing was inconvenient and occurred outside normal work hours, the Court relied on policy documents referenced in the legal Complaint showing that testing time was paid. Without factual allegations showing loss of pay or other concrete harm, her claim could not proceed.
Practical Religious Accommodation Takeaways for Employers
The Colson decision fits squarely within a growing body of case law emphasizing that religious accommodation claims under Title VII remain fact‑intensive and require careful pleading. For employers, the case offers several practical lessons.
- Document accommodation processes and policies. Clear written policies explaining how employees can comply with requirements or obtain reasonable accommodations, including whether time spent on compliance activities is paid, can play a critical role in early dismissal of claims. Courts will look closely at what the employer actually offered.
- Engage with accommodation requests, but assess them carefully. Employers should continue to engage in a confidential interactive process when employees raise religious objections and request accommodation. At the same time, this Court decision confirms that employers are not required to accept every asserted religious belief at face value if the employee cannot articulate how the belief is religious or how it conflicts with a job requirement.
- Focus on consistency and neutrality. The employer’s policy at issue applied broadly, offered multiple compliance options, and included mechanisms to reduce employee burden. Neutral application of such policies remains a strong defense to discrimination claims.
- Do not assume recent precedent changes everything. While recent court decisions have clarified aspects of what constitutes an adverse employment action, they do not eliminate the basic pleading requirements for religious accommodation claims. Courts will continue to scrutinize whether plaintiffs have plausibly alleged each required element of a Title VII accommodation claim.
- Be creative and be prepared to grant accommodations when reasonable and not an undue hardship. While the plaintiffs did not prevail in the Colson case, there is an increased focus on religious liberties under the current Trump administration and employers are responsible under Title VII to engage in a good faith, confidential interactive process – based on the specific situation and facts at issue – and to grant reasonable accommodations for legitimate accommodation requests when not an undue hardship. In addition, even if an employer has a solid defense that a particular requested accommodation is an undue hardship, they should consider if alternatives can be reasonably offered. Employers who are unclear on what may or may not be a legitimate request or how to navigate an accommodation request should consult legal counsel.