Case: John Doe, et al. v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, et al., No. 24-1015
Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-03-24
Status: Pending
Question Presented: (1) Whether compliance with state laws directly contrary to Title VII's requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer's noncompliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2) Whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to Title VII's religious nondiscrimination provision, is preempted by Title VII and the S...
On December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in John Doe v. Hochul. That invitation, issued after the case had been distributed for conference eight separate times without action, signals that at least some Justices see a genuine federal question worth examining before deciding whether to grant certiorari.
The petitioners argue that Title VII independently required their employers to engage in an individualized reasonable-accommodation analysis, and that New York's blanket prohibition cannot override that federal obligation. Petitioner Mathew D. Staver filed the petition; respondents are represented by a team including Barbara Dale Underwood for the state.
The two questions presented cut to a genuine tension in federal employment law. If state law can constitute “undue hardship” under Title VII, employers in restrictive states could effectively nullify the accommodation duty. The eight conference distributions before the CVSG suggest the Court is not yet ready to grant or deny, and wants the executive branch’s position on Supremacy Clause preemption. The full docket reflects that briefing is complete.
The CVSG is a meaningful signal. It places the case in a holding pattern where the federal government’s view on preemption could either encourage a grant or provide the Court a principled basis to deny. Observers should watch whether the current administration’s Solicitor General supports the workers’ preemption argument, which would add considerable weight to the petition.