Unpaid Leave Can Be Reasonable Religious Accommodation Under FEHA, Court Of Appeal Rules

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”) proscribes various forms of employment discrimination, including discrimination based on religious beliefs. Among other things, the FEHA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation when an employee’s religious belief conflicts with their job requirements. On October 7, 2026, in Smith v. Burbank Unified School District, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal held that an unpaid leave of absence can be a reasonable accommodation for employees whose religious beliefs prevent them from complying with a mandatory vaccination requirement.

Legal Background

The FEHA generally prohibits California employers with 5 or more employees from engaging in discrimination in employment decisions. Under the FEHA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against a person because of conflict between the person’s religious belief and employment requirements, unless the employer can demonstrate that it cannot reasonably accommodate the religious belief without suffering an undue hardship. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, subd. (l)(1).

FEHA’s implementing regulation provides that a reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the conflict between the religious practice and the job requirement. Such accommodations may include job restructuring, job reassignment, modification of work practices, or allowing time off in an amount equal to the non-regularly scheduled time the employee has worked to avoid a conflict with their religious observances. The regulation further provides: “Unless expressly requested by an employee, an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires segregation of an employee from customers or the general public.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11062, subd. (a).

Facts and Procedural History

In 1992, Douglas Smith began working for Burbank Unified School District as a high school chemistry and physical science teacher. In the spring of 2020, the District shut down its schools to comply with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, transitioning to distance learning through early 2021 and then to a “hybrid” model by April 2021. The District resumed full-time in-person classes for the 2021-2022 school year and required all personnel to be vaccinated. Roughly 100 District employees requested an exemption from the vaccine requirement, and the District granted every request. Some of the exemptions were medical, while others were religious. Mr. Smith requested and received a religious exemption based on his Christian faith. Three of the religious-exemption employees and two of the medical-exemption employees held isolated office jobs with no in-person contact requirement, and the District accommodated these five employees without requiring them to take unpaid leave. For teachers and other employees whose job duties required in-person contact, the District offered unpaid leave as the accommodation.

In October 2021, the District told Mr. Smith that if he remained unvaccinated, he could request unpaid leave or resign. Mr. Smith requested unpaid leave from October 25, 2021 to May 30, 2022, using his accrued paid time off until it ran out on March 7, 2022.

In December 2021, Mr. Smith appealed his unpaid leave status to the District’s superintendent. That appeal was denied and, thereafter, Mr. Smith filed a formal complaint with the District alleging religious discrimination. The District found Mr. Smith’s complaint to be meritless after an investigation, and further concluded that Mr. Smith’s proposed alternative accommodations—twice-weekly testing or remote work—were not feasible. According to the District, testing would be unduly burdensome and in-person instruction was an essential teaching duty. At Mr. Smith’s request, the District extended his unpaid leave twice, through June 2024.

In January 2023, while still on leave, Mr. Smith began teaching chemistry at a charter school system with no vaccine mandate. In January 2024, after its vaccine mandate was lifted, the District asked Mr. Smith whether he planned to return for the 2024-2025 school year. Mr. Smith told the District that he had a new job and would not be returning, and he resigned effective June 2024.

Mr. Smith sued the District for religious discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing it had legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons for placing Mr. Smith on unpaid leave and that no evidence supported Mr. Smith’s discrimination or retaliation claims. The trial court found that Mr. Smith established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, but that the District met its burden of showing the unpaid leave was the only reasonable accommodation that did not pose an undue burden. The court found that Mr. Smith failed to show his proposed alternative accommodations would allow him to effectively teach and supervise students or that they would be as effective as vaccination, and the court granted summary judgment for the District.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

Mr. Smith appealed, relying on FEHA’s implementing regulation, which provides: “Unless expressly requested by an employee, an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires segregation of an employee from customers or the general public.” Mr. Smith argued that unpaid leave cannot be a reasonable accommodation because it results in segregation.

On October 7, 2026, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the District. In doing so, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Smith’s “literal reading” of the regulation’s last sentence. The Court concluded that the unpaid leave accommodation offered by the District eliminated the conflict between Mr. Smith’s religious practice and the vaccination requirement. Additionally, the Court of Appeal noted that Mr. Smith could have returned to his position once the mandate was lifted. The Court of Appeal also relied upon analogous federal authority when interpreting the FEHA; specifically citing to Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook. In Philbrook, the U.S. Supreme Court found unpaid leave a reasonable religious accommodation.

The Court of Appeal also noted that Mr. Smith conceded full vaccination was the District’s most effective safety measure and that he failed to rebut the District’s evidence of the logistical burdens of alternative accommodations for teachers. Finally, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination that Mr. Smith’s religion was not a motivating factor in the District’s decision and that the District did not engage in intentional religious discrimination. When doing so, the Court of Appeal relied on evidence that the District gave every exempted teacher unpaid leave and reserved alternative accommodations for non-teachers without daily in-person contact.

Key Takeaways

While Smith is a significant win for California employers, its impact is narrowed by the particular facts and circumstances of the underlying case. Below are five key takeaways navigating the accommodation landscape in the wake of Smith:

1. Unpaid leave is not automatically “segregation.” The Court of Appeal rejected a literal reading of the FEHA regulation barring accommodations that “segregate” an employee, holding that unpaid leave can still eliminate the conflict between a religious practice and a job requirement.
2. A fact-specific win, but not a blanket rule. The Court of Appeal leaned on the District’s undue-hardship evidence, Mr. Smith’s own concessions, and his ability to return once the mandate lifted. Employers lacking comparable facts should not assume the same result.
3. Document the undue hardship. The District showed that twice-weekly testing and remote work were not feasible alternatives for a classroom teacher. Employers should be ready to show, concretely, why proposed alternatives do not work.
4. Apply accommodations consistently by job function, not exemption type. The District offered the same unpaid-leave accommodation to every teacher regardless of whether the exemption was religious or medical; a key fact for the District in defeating Mr. Smith’s discrimination claim.
5. The ruling is limited to religious accommodation. Smith says nothing about the FEHA’s separate interactive-process and disability-accommodation obligations, so it should not be read as blanketly approving unpaid leave for medical exemption requests.

Employers should review Smith’s implications with experienced counsel before making accommodation decisions to understand what the ruling means for them, and what steps they should take to prevent and defend against religious discrimination lawsuits brought under the FEHA and other state and federal anti-discrimination statutes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.