Whether federal courts must apply a broad, expansive definition of religious belief under Title VII that allows for the coexistence of secular and religious motivations when evaluating employment discrimination claims

No question identified. : for a rehearing en banc is attached at App.2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The District Court Memorandum opinion is attached at App.6. This case presents two important questions: 1) the definition and scope of religious belief under Title VI when religious belief and secular beliefs are intertwined and 2) the role of the judiciary in determining whether a belief is religious when deciding a dispositive motion. This is a timely and recurring legal question that is the subject of a clearly defined circuit split with the majority of circuits adopting an expansive definition of religion, in which religious beliefs can co-exist alongside secular beliefs, and a limited inquiry by the judiciary concerning the religiosity of belief. This is in contrast with the Third Circuit’s narrower definition of religious belief and searching judicial scrutiny. Since the Third Circuit denied rehearing, additional circuits have weighed in on this topic, deepening the circuit split. Two circuits have issued decisions within the last sixteen days on the scope of protected religious beliefs under Title VI. On July 2, 2025, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Alfred v. Federal Reserve of New York, No. 23-7544, which reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer because a jury “could infer that [plaintiff] has both secular andreligious objections to the Covid-19 vaccines” and that “the job of choosing between those inferences is for the jury, not the district court on summary judgment.” Jd. at 28-29 (emphasis in original). On June 17, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Damiano v. Grants Pass Sch. Dist. No. 7, 23-35288, which held that a district court interpreted the definition of religious belief under Title VII too narrowly in dismissing a claim because the plaintiff did not cite any Bible passages or scripture. Jd. at 26. Counsel respectfully requests a 45 day extension of time to file the petition to ensure that it includes and sufficiently incorporates the recent circuit court decisions on this important topic. For these reasons, and due to obligations of counsel in other cases, including three depositions in the first two weeks of July, counsel respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to petition for certiorari up to and including August 28, 2025. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dana Wefer Dana Wefer Law Offices of Dana Wefer 290 Hackensack Street PO Box 374 Wood-Ridge, NJ 07075 973-610-0491 July 3, 2025