Goldberg Segalla partner and co-chair of the firm’s nationwide Employment and Labor practice group, Caroline J. Berdzik, was quoted extensively in an article published by Law360 reacting to a Third Circuit decision regarding employers handling religious accommodation requests.

The article, “3 Lessons From 3rd Circ. Reviving Fire Dept. Beard Battle,” by Amanda Ottaway, explores an intriguing case in which the Third Circuit panel ruled in favor of a Christian fire department worker who wanted to grow facial hair despite the department’s no-beard policy.

In its 2-1 decision, the court partially reinstated Alexander Smith’s Title VII and First Amendment suit “claiming he was illegally denied a carveout to the grooming policy” because the Atlantic City, New Jersey, department could have taken steps to accommodate Smith’s request. For example, the department could have removed Smith from his firefighting duties since his main job is an air mask technician.

“All these cases, a lot of times, turn on the specifics,” Caroline says. “But there were quite a few things here that you say as a management attorney, ‘These are areas that were really not buttoned up probably as well as they should have been.’”

The article goes on to list and explain lessons employers can learn from the opinion, such as being consistent when it comes to exceptions. Berdzik points to the department’s allowance for other kinds of exceptions to its facial hair policy as a major issue for its argument in this case.

“If there could potentially be an exception to this, it calls into question whether the religious reason could have been accommodated if you’re affording other accommodations that are not based on someone’s protected religion,” she says.

That even includes hypothetical exceptions that have never been used in practice.

“Policies that exist, even if it doesn’t happen, someone can call out, ‘When the policy was drafted, this was contemplated,’” she continues.

The article adds another lesson, stating that blanket policies are “risky.” In this case, Smith worked as an air mask technician, so Atlantic City probably failed to show exactly why allowing Smith to grow a beard would have endangered his safety.

“Safety reasons are a very important thing,” Caroline says. “But I think what the court had an issue with was it didn’t seem that there was much consideration or really an interactive-type process that happened here. It was just kind of like, ‘No, we’re not going to allow it. End of story.’”

She notes that grooming policies for firefighters have been challenged for years, based on various protected categories such as race and medical condition.

“If you are going to have grooming standards, make sure that they are narrowly tailored to legitimate safety concerns, not things that are based on speculation,” she says. “I would personally avoid blanket bans, like ‘no beards,’…unless the employer can actually show that there are no less restrictive alternatives that may be out there.”

Caroline believes employers should document specific safety risks if they allowed firefighters to grow facial hair, so they could note “how facial hair might interfere with equipment like the SCBAs, and if there are any deviations, why those exceptions are allowed.”

Most importantly, Caroline advises employers to always loop in their human resources department, and sometimes their legal counsel, when faced with requests for accommodation.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: “3 Lessons From 3rd Circ. Reviving Fire Dept. Beard Battle,” Law360, June 10, 2025

MORE ABOUT GOLDBERG SEGALLA’S Caroline J. Berdzik:

Caroline devotes her practice to helping businesses, organizations, and management navigate the panoply of employment law issues, from proactive counseling through alternative dispute resolution and trial. She represents companies in diverse industries such as health care, transportation, retail, construction, insurance, and finance, as well as non-profit organizations and educational and religious institutions.

In every matter, Caroline draws upon her previous experience as an in-house counsel to bring a deep understanding of and sensitivity to the daily challenges and cost considerations companies face. Accordingly, in her role as advisor and advocate, she functions as a virtual extension of clients’ in-house legal and human resources teams, working in integrated partnership with them to protect the company’s best interests and bottom line.