Compliance Stuff

Introduction A single exception can now unravel your entire workplace safety policy. The Third Circuit's decision on May 30, 2025, in Smith v. Atlantic City, 1  underscores how even minor exceptions to grooming or masking rules can expose employers to legal risk. This decision raises the stakes for employers crafting policies that intersect with religious accommodations, particularly those involving mandatory masking or respirator use. The ruling makes clear that even well-intentioned safety policies can be invalidated if they contain practical or discretionary exceptions. Factual Background Alexander Smith, a firefighter employed by the Atlantic City Fire Department, was subject to the department's grooming policy which required firefighters to be clean-shaven. The policy was designed to ensure a proper seal when wearing self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs), which protect firefighters from smoke and toxic fumes. A tight seal is essential for the SCBA to function prop...

If you have a grooming policy based on safety factors (like no beards for firefighters), does that trump an employee’s request for a religious accommodation? Maybe not. A recent Third Circuit decision,  Smith v. City of Atlantic City, et al .,  addressed this issue and partially reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Atlantic City. The court revived a firefighter’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII. The decision offers important guidance on how courts evaluate workplace grooming policies and employers’ obligations to accommodate religious beliefs. Burning Through the Facts Alexander Smith, a long-serving firefighter, served as the city’s only assigned air mask technician — a role that required him to maintain SCBA (self-contained breathing apparatus) units but not to enter hazardous environments. As a Christian, Smith requested that the city allow him to grow a beard as an accommodation to his sincerely held beliefs. The city’s gr...