Jury Verdict Highlights Expanding Damages Risk In Religious Accommodation Cases

February 26, 2026

What's New

A Michigan jury recently awarded $1.8 million to a former employee after an employer refused to accommodate an English-language teacher’s request to wear a veil while teaching, consistent with her religious beliefs (Hamood v. Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services). Although Title VII caps combined compensatory and punitive damages at $300,000 for large employers, this religious accommodation case was also brought under Michigan law, which does not impose a similar cap.

Hamood reflects a broader trend. In late 2024, a Michigan jury awarded nearly $13 million—including $10 million in punitive damages—in Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, another religious accommodation case brought under both Title VII and state law. More recently, a Kansas jury awarded more than $5 million under state civil rights and religious freedom statutes in a workplace accommodation dispute.

What It Means

These verdicts illustrate how state law claims can significantly expand damages exposure beyond Title VII’s limits. That risk is heightened by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which made it significantly harder for employers to deny religious accommodation requests based on cost.

Taken together, the broader federal accommodation standard and uncapped state law remedies place greater scrutiny on how employers assess, document, and communicate accommodation decisions.

What You Should Do

Employers should review religious accommodation practices with both federal and state law exposure in mind and ensure decisions reflect individualized, well-documented analyses rather than categorical rules. CWC’s Navigating the Reasonable Accommodation Process course explores best practices and emerging risk areas.

RELATED CONTENT

Subscribe to CWC's Updates and Events

CLICK TO SIGN UP