Yes. In a recent case before the Supreme Court, a woman was declined a sales associate job because her hijab violated Abercrombie's look policy, even though the job applicant was not informed of this policy. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, the Court held that if management has even a suspicion about an applicant or an employee's religious views and/or need for an accommodation, it may violate Federal civil rights laws to not hire or accommodate, that applicant or employee, while enforcing a completely neutral job rule. So even if a job applicant or employee does not inform management about a religious practice, the employer still must make religious accommodations for that applicant or employee if they believe the worker follows a certain religious belief or practice, even if doing so contradicts neutral company policies. Remember, however, that your employer is only obligated to provide an accommodation so long as it will not cause an undue hardship or burden the employer.
This changes the idea that employees must first request the accommodation and puts forth the new standard that so long as the employer had even a remote suspicion that an accommodation would be needed, it must provide that accommodation. If a job applicant or an employee does not get hired or faces an adverse employment action, they only need to show that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.
However, in EEOC v. Baystate Med. Ctr., Inc., a complaint was filed on June 2, 2016 alleging that a hospital in Massachusetts discriminated against an employee who failed to obtain a flu shot due to religious reasons and raised concern to the alternative of wearing a face mask at work. The medical center suspended her without pay when she was seen at work without her without a mask. The EEOC has alleged that the mask policy is unreasonable because others had a hard time understanding her when she spoke and argued that allowing her to remove the mask to speak would not cause an under hardship or burden on the hospital because she had not contact with patient.
According to the complaint, Baystate’s policies apply to all employees including those who don’t come into contact with patients. Employees who failed to comply with the policy for religious or other reasons were required to wear a face mask or they were placed on unpaid leave, without job protection, until they complied with the policy or the flu season ended, the EEOC asserts. This case notes that employers may question the sincerity of an employee’s alleged religious belief and will likely resolve the issue on what is considered a “reasonable accommodation” for issues involving religious beliefs and vaccinations.