Religious Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Do Not Include Political, Social, Economic Beliefs, According to EEOC
3 min read
Nov 24, 2021
On November 5, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). It required employers of 100 or more employees to institute mandates requiring employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19—or require weekly testing of its employees. That same day, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) similarly issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) requiring the workforces of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in order for Medicare and Medicaid facilities to continue participation in those programs. Many employers have also instituted COVID-19 vaccination mandates for their employees separate from OSHA’s ETS and CMS’s IFR.
Regardless of whether an employer is following OSHA’s ETS, the CMS’s IFR, or has instituted its own vaccine mandate, employers must be aware that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)—which protects employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs. Therefore, Title VII may require employers to provide religious exemptions to a vaccine mandate where it conflicts with the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, has released technical assistance questions and answers to keep employers informed of how various employment discrimination laws apply to COVID-19. The EEOC is regularly updating its COVID-19 technical assistance.
One important update to the technical assistance occurred on October 26, 2021. In this update, the EEOC clarified that social, political, or economic views, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs subject to a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This clarification is important because employer vaccine mandates have become highly contentious, and employees may claim that their personal, political, or other non-religious beliefs exempt them from COVID-19 vaccine mandates. According to the EEOC’s guidance on religious accommodations, a religious belief is “a belief that occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.” It can include “non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Religious beliefs typically concern “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Whether a belief is religious is determined on a case-by-case basis. However, the EEOC is clear that beliefs that are merely political, social, economic, or personal do not qualify as protected religious beliefs.
If an employee has a purely political, social, economic, or personal objection to the COVID-19 vaccine, and the objection has no relation to religion, then, according to the EEOC, the employee does not qualify for a religious exemption to COVID-19 vaccine mandates under Title VII.
Employers should consult with their labor and employment attorney when assessing an employee’s request for an exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Additional Resources:
- Sixth Circuit Selected in Lottery Process to Preside Over Legal Challenges to OSHA's Vaccination ETS, November 17, 2021
- Fifth Circuit Grants Stay of OSHA's Mandatory Vaccination ETS, Voices "Grave Statutory and Constitutional" Concerns, November 15, 2021
- OSHA Issues ETS Requiring Employee COVID-19 Vaccinations, November 5, 2021
- FAQs: CMS Issues Emergency Regulation Mandating Workforce COVID-19 Vaccinations by Medicare/Medicaid-Certified Providers and Suppliers, November 9, 2021
Featured Insights

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

