By Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Francine Foner, Esq.

July 8, 2025

When does the grooming policy of a public employer yield to the religious beliefs of an employee under the free-exercise clause of the United States constitution and the right to religious accommodation under Title VII?  Those were among the issues recently considered by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Smith v. City of Atlantic City, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13168 *; 2025 LX 166007, __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 1537927 (May 30, 2025).

Alexander Smith works for the Atlantic City Fire Department (Fire Department) as an Air Mask Technician.  Although classified as a “firefighter,” Smith has not been involved in actively fighting fires since 2015. Rather, Smith’s job is to fill and refill the self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs), worn by firefighters on the scene of a fire, in an area “away from the smoke and fumes so that firefighters can safely remove their SCBAs and switch air tanks.”  Id. at *5.   In fact, the city ordered Smith to no longer engage in any fire suppression, as he was the sole crew member responsible for working on the Air Truck Unit. Nonetheless, the Atlantic City Fire Department took the position that as a firefighter, Smith was subject to the Fire Department’s grooming policy, which prohibits beards or goatees to ensure that firefighters have properly fitted and sealed SCBAs.

Based on his religious beliefs, Smith began growing a beard in December 2018 and submitted a religious accommodation request to the city the following month to allow him to continue to wear a beard at work. However, without engaging in any discussion with Smith about whether there were any available alternative accommodations, the city denied Smith’s requested accommodation and ordered him to shave his beard or face suspension without pay.  Smith then filed suit against the city in the New Jersey District Court and moved for a preliminary injunction. Smith’s complaint included claims of failure to accommodate under Title VII and violation of the constitution’s free-exercise clause.

The District Court denied Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and, following discovery, dismissed Smith’s Complaint on the city’s motion for summary judgment. Smith then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Circuit Court vacated the lower court’s dismissal of Smith’s Title VII accommodation claim and free exercise claim and also reversed the denial of Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

In evaluating whether the grooming policy violated the free-exercise clause, the Court first considered whether the policy was generally applicable to all, as required by the free-exercise clause. The Court found that the city’s policy prohibiting beards had an exception for administrative employees, as well as an exception for Captains to exclude themselves from the policy in their discretion. Therefore, the Court found that such exceptions undermined the City’s asserted safety interest in the policy, rendering the policy not “generally applicable.”  The Court next found that because the policy did not meet the general applicability requirement, it would violate the free exercise clause unless the city could show that the city had a compelling interest and the grooming policy was narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. However, the Court found that the city could not meet that “strict scrutiny” test, because the city could achieve its stated safety interest through other potential options. The Court provided examples of such potential alternatives, including removing Smith from fire suppression duty, reclassifying him as a civilian who is not subject to the SCBA and grooming policies, or trying to fit Smith with an SCBA to see if he could pass the SCBA fit test with his beard. As the Court observed “[t]here are likely more solutions than these three, but ‘so long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so.’”  Id. at *18 (citation omitted).

The Court next considered Smith’s failure to accommodate claim under Title VII. The Court first noted that there was no dispute that Smith had established a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate under title VII, since he had (1) “a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement”; (2) “told the employer about the conflict”; and (3) faced “discipline[] for failing to comply.” Id.  (citation omitted). Therefore, the city was required to show that its accommodation of Smith’s request to keep his beard would impose an “undue hardship” on the city. However, the Court found that the city failed to show that it would have suffered such undue hardship, as it was unlikely that Smith would be called to engage in fire suppression activities requiring the wearing of a SCBA. The Court came to this conclusion based on the facts that no Air Mask Technician had been called to engage in fire suppression for several decades, and as no other employees were seeking an accommodation relating to SCBAs, there were ample other firefighters available to safely respond to fires.

The Court further found that Smith had satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because he was able to show that there was a likelihood of success on his free-exercise and Title VII accommodation claims, and that the District Court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because it relied upon the wrong legal standard in dismissing those claims. Further, the Court held that Smith would suffer irreparable harm, absent granting a preliminary injunction, because loss of a first amendment freedom constitutes irreparable injury and the city’s interest was not significant enough to outweigh Smith’s fundamental right of religious freedom.

This case reflects that public employers should carefully consider employee requests for accommodation from facial hair, or other policies, based on an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, taking into account the specific circumstances involved, and make sure to engage in interactive discussions to consider alternative accommodations or solutions.

If you feel that you are being a target of discriminatory treatment or not being accommodated due to your religious beliefs, or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.