Rethinking unpaid leave as a religious accommodation
Out of sight, out of mind might be a useful philosophy if you’re trying to eat less junk food, but it’s not a smart tactic for avoiding a religious discrimination claim.
In September 2025, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Bilyeu et al. v. UT-Battelle, LLC, looked at unpaid leave as a religious accommodation.
The events in question go back to the pandemic. An employee objected to an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy for religious reasons. Management had the employee:
- Answer questions about his beliefs,
- Sign a statement attesting to those beliefs, and
- Read a list of quotes from religious leaders who supported vaccination.
The employee still refused to be vaccinated, so the company told him to use vacation time and then go on unpaid leave. The company called the leave an accommodation.
A new question
The appeals court didn’t rule that the company’s actions were illegal but rather sent the case back to the circuit court to consider a new question. In its opinion, the appeals court cited the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Muldreow v. City of St. Louis. In that case, the high court said that harm from a discriminatory employment action “need not be significant” to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
So, in Bilyeu, the appeals court decided the lower court should, based on Muldreow, consider whether the unpaid leave caused some (even insignificant) harm to the employee’s terms or conditions of employment because of religion. If it did cause harm, it would be considered religious discrimination under Title VII.
Examples of harm that might be caused by putting an employee on unpaid leave could include:
- Reduced income,
- Interruptions to ongoing projects, and
- Reduced connections with coworkers.
A lesson for employers
While the outcome in this case remains unknown, there is a lesson here. Employers should use caution when suggesting unpaid leave as an accommodation.
When an employee truly cannot work, using unpaid leave can be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, it’s likely not a reasonable accommodation in a religious accommodation situation. In fact, unpaid leave could be viewed as an adverse employment action in a religious accommodation case.
If, for example, an employee asks to switch shifts in order to have Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath, but is instead told to take Saturdays off without pay, that might appear to a court to be an “adverse employment action” because the employee is able to work on other days.
Another example is if a manager sends an employee home without pay because the employee refuses to attend a company-sponsored prayer breakfast that conflicts with the employee’s beliefs, the employee might have grounds for a religious accommodation claim.
When an employee requests an accommodation based on religious beliefs, don’t go to “unpaid time off” as the answer, but rather look for ways for the person to “work differently,” whether that means a different shift or a different activity than the one they object to.
Key to remember: Sending an employee home without pay might cause harm to the employee and should not be the go-to response to a religious accommodation request.

















































