Supreme Court declines to review Doe v. Hochul: Title VII accommodations

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review John Doe, et al. v. Kathy Hochul (No. 24-1015), leaving in place the lower-court handling of a Title VII dispute brought by healthcare workers who said they were disciplined or fired over religious objections rather than receiving a sufficiently reasonable accommodation.

What the case was about i

The conflict centers on how far an employer must go under Title VII when a healthcare workforce must follow mandatory rules—here, involving COVID-era vaccination requirements—while employees say their sincerely held religious beliefs require a different approach.

In the Supreme Court materials, the dispute included whether alternatives such as weekly testing and masking could function as a religious accommodation in place of vaccination, and the employers’ view that granting such relief would create “undue hardship” tied to operational and legal compliance pressures in healthcare settings.

What “cert denied” does—and does not—mean i

“Cert denied” means the Supreme Court chose not to take the case on the merits. It does not mean the Court approved the lower court’s reasoning or issued a brand-new nationwide rule on religious accommodations.

The Supreme Court docket and order show the petition was denied on June 29, 2026, with Justice Gorsuch dissenting (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito).

The Title VII framework still in play i

For workplaces nationwide, the practical legal takeaway is that Title VII’s religious-accommodation standard still works the same way: employers must consider reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

EEOC guidance emphasizes that “undue hardship” must be supported by objective information (not hypothetical assumptions) and that employers should explore alternative accommodations rather than treating every conflict with a workplace policy as automatic refusal.

What to watch next i

With SCOTUS not taking up this petition, the lower-court outcome remains controlling for the parties. Readers should watch for future religious-accommodation disputes in other circuits involving healthcare safety and operational constraints—cases that could raise similar questions and, eventually, seek Supreme Court review again.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court order (certiorari denied) — Doe v. Hochul, No. 24-1015
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — Questions and Answers on Religious Discrimination in the Workplace (religious accommodation / undue hardship)
• DOJ Office of the Solicitor General — Doe v. Hochul brief page (federal-government filing context)
• CBS News — report on Supreme Court action in healthcare workers’ religious-accommodation dispute