If you have a grooming policy based on safety factors (like no beards for firefighters), does that trump an employee’s request for a religious accommodation? Maybe not. A recent Third Circuit decision, Smith v. City of Atlantic City, et al., addressed this issue and partially reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Atlantic City. The court revived a firefighter’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII. The decision offers important guidance on how courts evaluate workplace grooming policies and employers’ obligations to accommodate religious beliefs.
Burning Through the Facts
Alexander Smith, a long-serving firefighter, served as the city’s only assigned air mask technician — a role that required him to maintain SCBA (self-contained breathing apparatus) units but not to enter hazardous environments. As a Christian, Smith requested that the city allow him to grow a beard as an accommodation to his sincerely held beliefs.
The city’s grooming policy mandates that firefighters be clean shaven while on duty, citing safety concerns related to SCBA seal integrity. However, the policy contains exceptions: (1) captains may allow deviations at their discretion, assuming responsibility for any unfavorable outcome, and (2) administrative personnel, like Smith, were not required to undergo annual SCBA fit testing — despite being subject to the same policy.
Although Smith did not insist his demand was an all-or-nothing accommodation, the city denied his request without discussing whether certain alternatives might satisfy his religious beliefs. Subsequently, he was informed he would be suspended if he refused to shave.
Smith filed a lawsuit claiming that the city’s denial of his requested accommodation was religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, as well as a violation of his right to freely exercise his religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. The district court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, and Smith appealed.
The Third Circuit Turns Up the Heat
The Third Circuit vacated summary judgment on Smith’s Free Exercise Clause and Title VII accommodation claims, finding that:
- The city’s grooming policy was not generally applicable because it allowed formal and informal exceptions that undermined the city’s stated safety interest. This triggered strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. (The strict scrutiny standard required the city to prove that it had a compelling state interest and that its actions were narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.)
- The city’s actions were not narrowly tailored to achieve its compelling interest. While safety is a compelling interest, the city did not explore less restrictive alternatives such as fit testing Smith with a beard or continuing to exclude him from suppression duties, as it had done for years.
- The city did not demonstrate that granting the accommodation would pose an undue hardship under Title VII. Applying the Supreme Court’s standard from Groff v. DeJoy, the appeals court held that speculative risks do not qualify. The record showed no evidence that Smith’s beard posed an actual operational risk, especially given his role and the infrequency of emergency calls that might require him to wear an SCBA.
Lessons from the Ashes: Takeaways for Employers
Considering this decision, employers should understand:
- Religious accommodations must be taken seriously. A blanket policy — even one rooted in safety — may not be sufficient if it allows discretion or contains exemptions.
- Interactive process matters. Employers should engage with employees to assess alternative accommodations before denying requests.
- The Groff standard is here to stay. “Undue hardship” under Title VII requires a showing of substantial, excessive, or unjustifiable burden — not mere inconvenience or administrative hassle.
If your workplace grooming policies contain any exceptions — or if you receive an accommodation request related to those policies — consult your employment counsel early. Proactive legal guidance is critical to ensure compliance and mitigate risk.