Religious Accommodation and Remote Work: Document the Duties That Would Stay On Site

If an employer says your proposed religious accommodation would put pressure on coworkers, ask how the remaining work would affect the business. Coworker impact can matter. A general assertion of pressure, without an explanation of the duties and resulting operational burden, did not establish undue hardship on the remote-work summary judgment record in Bird.

The October 8, 2026 Ninth Circuit memorandum addressed Title VII and parallel Oregon claims. It is nonprecedential except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The court upheld the dental practice’s hardship defense for unvaccinated on-site work but sent Bird’s remote-work claim back for further proceedings. It did not order the employer to grant remote work. Bird v. Alanson M. Randol DDS, PC, No. 25-1714, slip op. at 4–6 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2026).

The On-Site Objection and the Remote Proposal Need Separate Explanations

A reason why someone cannot safely remain on site does not automatically answer what would happen if that person worked elsewhere. Bird could perform many, but not all, front-desk duties remotely. The employer needed to explain the impact of covering the remaining in-person duties. The opinion did not identify each duty, so scheduling or billing tasks in a proposed worksheet should be labeled as the actual employee’s tasks, not assumed facts from this case. Bird, slip op. at 5.

This article addresses the narrower coverage question after a remote proposal is raised. Our religious-accommodation alternatives guide addresses the broader California evaluation of duties, alternatives, and leave. Federal Title VII and California FEHA claims require their respective standards.

Describe the Remaining Duties Before Assigning a Cost

For each duty that would remain on site, identify when it occurs, how much time it ordinarily takes, who presently handles it, and what happens when coverage is unavailable. Then describe the proposed allocation. Do not equate a coworker receiving one additional task with proof of a substantial overall business burden.

In Bird’s record, the employer referred to pressure on a front-desk team of seven to nine staff members in total. It did not explain sufficiently why other staff could not absorb the remaining duties or how that transfer would burden the business substantially. The number of employees was relevant context, not a numerical rule requiring a business of that size to accept remote work. Id.

Connect Coworker Impact to Business Operations

The panel applied the substantial-burden standard described in Groff. It explained that effects on coworkers are relevant only to the extent they affect the conduct of the business. The issue was therefore the operational consequence of the proposed coverage, not whether colleagues preferred the existing arrangement. The standard is not limited to financial costs, and an employer does not have to prove that remote work is literally impossible. Id. at 4–5.

For an employer, preserve the factual basis for any claimed disruption. For an employee, make the proposed arrangement specific enough to evaluate and identify unanswered coverage questions. Neither a detailed worksheet nor the lack of one automatically establishes liability; it helps identify the evidence bearing on the defense.

Keep the Religious Conflict and the Remand in View

The worker must still establish a qualifying religious conflict with the employment requirement. Other plaintiffs in Bird’s case failed at that stage, while Bird’s remote-work issue turned on the employer’s hardship showing. A secular preference is not converted into a religious accommodation merely by changing the label. Id. at 2–5.

For the three employees’ separate outcomes and the limits of the appellate ruling, read our Bird case analysis. Our employment practice can review the proposal, response, and applicable legal framework.