Group Litigation
Medical Justice
Employment law for workers who asked for a religious accommodation, were refused, and lost their jobs, or were pushed out.
We hold employers to the standards Title VII and state law already set.
No obligation. Conflict check first. A website cannot decide whether you have a case.
Case potential
Answer a few questions for a general look at a federal Title VII religious-accommodation claim. At the end, you can add those answers to the consultation form.
This is a general indicator based on federal Title VII timing and your answers. It is not legal advice and does not decide whether you have a case. Deadlines can have exceptions, so talk to an attorney.
Answer the questions to see a general indicator.
No indicator yet Answer the questions to see a general indicator.
Exceptions may apply. A short call can confirm. 612-200-0235info@mklaw.com
Close to a deadline? Call 612-200-0235 now.
One question at a time. Choose an answer, then press Next. Don't type your story.
Did you ask your employer for a religious accommodation?
Situations this practice sees
The indicator above is general. These are examples of facts this practice consults on. If any of these sound like your situation, your facts may belong in a consultation, not in a comment thread or DM.
- Requested religious accommodation, denied, then terminated or forced out.
- Live dispute now (flu shot, testing, Sabbath or holiday scheduling, dress or grooming, required participation, licensure or credentialing), not only a 2021 mandate story.
- Request mentioned faith and medical or personal concerns; the employer treated it as "really" medical.
- Resigned or retired under credible threat of termination or loss of accrued benefits.
- Case dismissed, and you need to know whether the appeal window is still open.
- Referring counsel, organizations, or coalitions routing intake.
If deadlines already ran on an older termination, we will say so in the consultation. This page does not promise that an old claim is still open.
Employment law. Religious accommodation. Record-focused.
- Title VII and applicable state law, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act for Minnesota employees.
- Not a guarantee of accommodation, damages, or any result.
- Recent appellate decisions spoke first to pleading standards, not to who wins on undue hardship.
- A sincere belief is not an automatic accommodation. An employer may still prove undue hardship.
The published appellate record
The reversals resulted in over ten million dollars worth of settlements.
In 2024 and 2025, three published federal appellate rulings, Ringhofer, Bube, and Brokken, reversed dismissals and returned religious accommodation claims to the district courts. Each is a procedural ruling, not a final judgment. Each is published where anyone can read it.
Procedural remand
Ringhofer
102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024)
Dismissal reversed; claims returned.
The opinion recognized failure-to-accommodate claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. This is a procedural remand, not a final judgment.
Case page
Procedural remand
Bube
108 F.4th 1017 (7th Cir. 2024)
Dismissal reversed; claims returned.
At the pleading stage, a request can count as religious when it is plausibly based at least in part on a religious belief or practice, even if it also raises secular concerns. This is not a final judgment.
Case page
Procedural remand
Brokken
140 F.4th 445 (8th Cir. 2025)
Reversed in part and remanded — Eighth Circuit.
Retirement under a credible threat of termination and loss of accrued benefits can be an adverse action at the pleading stage. The court left some theories dismissed. This is not a final judgment.
Case page
Cole v. Group Health Plan, Inc. and Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc. are related procedural remands only. Each returned claims to the district court. Neither is a final judgment.
Accommodation is a standing issue
The COVID-era remands are the rulings we build on, not the only story.
Annual flu shots
Ongoing testing
Sabbath and holiday scheduling
Dress and grooming
Required participation
Licensure and credentialing overlaps
Title VII, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act where it applies, did not arrive in 2021 and did not leave in 2023.
Common questions
Do I have a case?
No website can answer that. It depends on what you requested, what your employer said, and when it happened. A consultation, after a conflict check, is where those facts are reviewed.
What if my request mentioned medical concerns too?
Medical concerns by themselves are not a religious accommodation claim. In Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, the Seventh Circuit held at the pleading stage that a request can count as religious when it is plausibly based at least in part on a religious belief or practice, even if it also raises secular concerns. That ruling returned the claims to the district court. It is a procedural ruling, not a final judgment.
I resigned under pressure. Does that matter?
It can. In Brokken v. Hennepin County, the Eighth Circuit held at the pleading stage that retirement under a credible threat of termination and loss of accrued benefits can be an adverse employment action. Write down the date you left. That ruling returned the claims to the district court. It is not a final judgment.
What if my belief was not treated as religious enough?
At the pleading stage, a religious belief does not have to be uniform, logical, or consistent to be pleaded. In Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, the Eighth Circuit reversed a dismissal on that basis and returned the claims to the district court. It is a procedural ruling, not a final judgment. Whether a belief is sincere is tested later in the case.
What deadlines apply?
Title VII usually requires an EEOC charge first, typically within 180 days, and often within 300 days where a state or local agency applies. After a Right-to-Sue notice, suit is typically due within 90 days. State periods vary. Act promptly. Timing is reviewed at a consultation, after a conflict check. This is general information, not advice.
My case was already dismissed. Is it over?
Not necessarily. Ringhofer, Bube, and Brokken were procedural rulings that revived dismissed claims and returned them to the district court. Appeal windows are often about 30 days. The date of the dismissal is the first thing to check.
These answers are general information, not legal advice, and reading them does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential facts in a comment, a direct message, or any public chat. Use the consultation form, or call the firm.
Why contact us now
We are so much better off being brought in early, when we can control the record.
Talk through your facts
On a first call, after a conflict check, we will tell you honestly what we think, including if we think you do not have a case.
No obligation. Conflict check first.
Request a consultation
The form is open. If you finished the questions above, your answers can be added to the notes. You can edit those notes. Nothing is sent until you press Send your inquiry.
MKLaw · Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis, MN 55402