(I'm not a lawyer but was successful in obtaining a religious exemption)
Freedom of Religion / Religious Accommodation
There are many different legal arguments for the religious accommodation but it looks like all of them come down to these two major legal areas.
First Amendment - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” [91] In the ruling for Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939; 9-0), the US Supreme Court held that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedom is also unconstitutional.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests.
EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605. (source: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws - under Title VII and COVID-19 Vaccinations, K.12).
Worker's Compensation:
There is also the Larson’s Workers’ Compensation treatise, which is widely cited across the country in workers’ compensation matters. In a document called "Vaccine implications in workers’ compensation" by Max Koonce, it states:
When inoculation is occasioned by the particular conditions of employment, injury resulting from the inoculation should be deemed to have occurred in the course of employment. If there is an element of actual compulsion emanating from the employer, the work connection is beyond question, as when the company requires the employee to submit to vaccination by the company's doctor as soon as the employee is hired, or during an epidemic tells the workers that unless they are vaccinated they cannot work until the epidemic is over. By equal logic, just as an employee on an overseas assignment is entitled to associate the contraction of malaria or polio or tuberculosis with the nature of the work, so any harm stemming from inoculations undertaken to protect against the risks of overseas diseases, whether the inoculations were strictly required or not, should be viewed as flowing directly from the employment. (9)
(I'm not a lawyer but was successful in obtaining a religious exemption)
Freedom of Religion / Religious Accommodation
There are many different legal arguments for the religious accommodation but it looks like all of them come down to these two major legal areas.
First Amendment - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” [91] In the ruling for Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939; 9-0), the US Supreme Court held that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedom is also unconstitutional.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests. EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605. (source: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws - under Title VII and COVID-19 Vaccinations, K.12).
Worker's Compensation:
There is also the Larson’s Workers’ Compensation treatise, which is widely cited across the country in workers’ compensation matters. In a document called "Vaccine implications in workers’ compensation" by Max Koonce, it states: When inoculation is occasioned by the particular conditions of employment, injury resulting from the inoculation should be deemed to have occurred in the course of employment. If there is an element of actual compulsion emanating from the employer, the work connection is beyond question, as when the company requires the employee to submit to vaccination by the company's doctor as soon as the employee is hired, or during an epidemic tells the workers that unless they are vaccinated they cannot work until the epidemic is over. By equal logic, just as an employee on an overseas assignment is entitled to associate the contraction of malaria or polio or tuberculosis with the nature of the work, so any harm stemming from inoculations undertaken to protect against the risks of overseas diseases, whether the inoculations were strictly required or not, should be viewed as flowing directly from the employment. (9)