Third Circuit Rules in Firefighter’s Religious Discrimination Case – But Emphasizes Limits

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a district court’s dismissal of claims brought by an Atlantic City firefighter assigned to administrative duties who sought a religious exemption from the department’s clean-shaven policy.

Alexander Smith, a practicing Christian, believes he is religiously obligated to wear a beard. The Atlantic City Fire Department denied his request for an accommodation, citing the need for a proper SCBA seal. Smith, who serves as the department’s only full-time Air Mask Technician, had not been fit-tested for SCBA use since 2015 and had not engaged in fire suppression in nearly a decade. His primary duties involved refilling and maintaining SCBAs at fire scenes, not entering hazardous environments.

Smith sued the City under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The US District Court for the District of New Jersey upheld the Atlantic City Fire Department’s no-beard policy in 2023. Here is more on that decision.

The Third Circuit reversed, finding in Smith’s favor on two counts—his Free Exercise claim and his Title VII accommodation claim—ordering further proceedings. The Court also reversed the denial of Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing him to wear his beard while the case proceeds.

The Court’s ruling was narrowly tailored. It emphasized that the City’s policies failed the “general applicability requirement.” The general applicability requirement means that a government policy must apply equally to all similar conduct, regardless of the reasons behind it—religious or otherwise. A policy fails this requirement if it allows exceptions for some secular reasons but not for comparable religious ones. When a policy is not generally applicable, courts apply strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

In this case, the Third Circuit concluded the city’s policies ran afoul of the general applicability requirement due to two key exceptions: (1) administrative firefighters were not being fit-tested annually, and (2) captains and incident commanders had discretionary authority to deviate from SCBA rules in the field. The court concluded these exceptions undermined the City’s claim that the grooming policy was uniformly enforced for safety reasons.

Importantly, the ruling does not establish a general right for firefighters to wear beards. The Court noted that Atlantic City could still enforce a clean-shaven policy if it does so in a generally applicable and narrowly tailored way that respects constitutional and statutory protections. Moreover, the ruling was limited to Smith’s unique role and the City’s handling of his request. It is not a broader judgment about facial hair in firefighting.

The Court affirmed the dismissal of Smith’s Equal Protection and retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of differential treatment or retaliatory motive. It also clarified that a denial of an accommodation request, by itself, does not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.

In sum, the Third Circuit’s decision highlights the need for fire departments to carefully evaluate and document how they apply safety-related policies, particularly where religious accommodations are requested. But the ruling should not be misconstrued as a blanket endorsement of bearded firefighters. It is a fact-specific decision arising from a unique set of circumstances—and it leaves the door open for departments to require clean-shaven personnel where justified.