CACI No. 2561. Religious Creed Discrimination - Reasonable Accommodation - Affirmative Defense - Undue Hardship (Gov. Code, §§ 12940(l)(1), 12926(u))
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2022 edition)Download PDF
2561.Religious Creed Discrimination - Reasonable
Accommodation - Affirmative Defense - Undue Hardship (Gov.
Code, §§ 12940(l)(1), 12926(u))
[Name of defendant] claims that accommodating [name of plaintiff]’s
[religious belief/religious observance] would create an undue hardship to
the operation of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] business.
To succeed on this defense, [name of defendant] must prove that [he/she/
nonbinary pronoun/it] considered reasonable alternative options for
accommodating the [religious belief/religious observance], including (1)
excusing [name of plaintiff] from duties that conflict with
[his/her/nonbinary pronoun] [religious belief/religious observance][,] [or]
(2) permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by
another person[, or (3) [specify other reasonable accommodation]].
If you decide that [name of defendant] considered but did not adopt [a]
reasonable accommodation[s], you must then decide if the
accommodation[s] would have created an undue hardship because it
would be significantly difficult or expensive, in light of the following
a. The nature and cost of the accommodation[s];
b. [Name of defendant]’s ability to pay for the accommodation[s];
c. The type of operations conducted at the facility;
d. The impact on the operations of the facility;
e. The number of [name of defendant]’s employees and the
relationship of the employees’ duties to one another;
f. The number, type, and location of [name of defendant]’s facilities;
g. The administrative and financial relationship of the facilities to
New September 2003; Revoked December 2012; Restored and Revised June 2013;
Revised November 2019, May 2020, May 2021
Directions for Use
For religious beliefs and observances, the statute requires the employer (or other
covered entity) to demonstrate that the employer explored certain means of
accommodating the plaintiff, including two specific possibilities: (1) excusing the
plaintiff from duties that conflict with the plaintiff’s religious belief or observance or
(2) permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person.
Copyright Judicial Council of California
(Gov. Code, § 12940(l)(1).) If there is evidence of another reasonable alternative
accommodation, include it as a third means of accommodating the plaintiff.
Sources and Authority
• Religious Accommodation Required Under Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Government Code section 12940(l)(1).
• “Undue Hardship” Defined. Government Code section 12926(u).
• “If the employee proves a prima facie case and the employer fails to initiate an
accommodation for the religious practices, the burden is then on the employer to
prove it will incur an undue hardship if it accommodates that belief. ‘[T]he
extent of undue hardship on the employer’s business is at issue only where the
employer claims that it is unable to offer any reasonable accommodation without
such hardship.’ . . .” (Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1996) 51
Cal.App.4th 345, 371 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 747], internal citations omitted.)
• “It would be anomalous to conclude that by ‘reasonable accommodation’
Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift and job preference of
some employees, as well as deprive them of their contractual rights, in order to
accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others, and we conclude that Title
VII does not require an employer to go that far. [¶] . . . [¶] Alternatively, the
Court of Appeals suggested that [the employer] could have replaced [plaintiff] on
his Saturday shift with other employees through the payment of premium
wages . . . . To require [the employer] to bear more than a de minimus cost . . .
is an undue hardship. Like abandonment of the seniority system, to require [the
employer] to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other
employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of
employees on the basis of their religion.” (TWA v. Hardison (1977) 432 U.S. 63,
81, 84 [97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113], footnote omitted.)
8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, §§ 1025,
Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 7-A, Title VII And The
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, ¶¶ 7:151, 7:215, 7:305, 7:610, 7:631,
7:640-7:641 (The Rutter Group)
2 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41, Substantive Requirements Under
Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, § 41.52 (Matthew Bender)
11 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115, Civil Rights: Employment
Discrimination, §§ 115.35[a]-[c], 115.54, 115.91 (Matthew Bender)
California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 2:71-2:73 (Thomson Reuters)
1 Lindemann and Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law (3d ed.) Religion, pp.
227-234 (2000 supp.) at pp. 100-105
2562-2569. Reserved for Future Use
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT CACI No. 2561
Copyright Judicial Council of California