Colette McCadd, a former Senior Manager at The Kraft Heinz Company, worked there for nearly 20 years with positive performance reviews and no discipline on her record.

In 2021, Kraft Heinz required employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to return to the office. McCadd requested a religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate based on her sincerely held religious beliefs, but the company denied her request while granting some other employees' medical and religious exemptions.

McCadd was terminated shortly after the denial.

McCadd filed a religious discrimination charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then pursued a federal lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging religious discrimination.

After the district court initially ruled against her, she appealed and continued to litigate. In November 2025, after approximately four years of legal proceedings, Kraft Heinz and McCadd settled.

Source: https://firstliberty.org/news/kraft-heinz-and-former-employee-reach-amicable-resolution-to-religious-discrimination-lawsuit/

Commentary

In the above source, a manager alleged she was fired soon after requesting a religious accommodation regarding a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. After four years of litigation, the matter was settled.

For employers, the risk point is not only whether an accommodation is granted or denied, but how managers and HR behave immediately after a request is made. Any negative change in treatment - discipline, schedule changes, exclusion from projects, or termination - can appear retaliatory if it closely follows a protected request for accommodation under Title VII or state law.

Practical training for managers and HR should emphasize:

   · Treating accommodation requests seriously from the first mention and prohibiting comments that mock or question an employee's beliefs.

   · Routing all requests through HR or a centralized process rather than letting individual supervisors improvise.

   · Documenting the interactive process, including options considered, including a Groff v. DeJoy "substantial increased costs" analysis, and legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for any subsequent employment action.

   · Requiring HR and legal review before disciplining or terminating anyone who has recently requested accommodation.

   · Reinforcing anti-retaliation expectations in evaluations for managers and holding them accountable when they ignore guidance.

The final takeaway is that training and enforced procedures can help reduce the risk of retaliation claims following an employee request for a religious accommodation.