Federal Agency Faces Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Following Denial of Applicant Over Sacramental Ayahuasca Use

A recent judicial ruling has thrust the intersection of federal drug policy and religious freedom into the spotlight, as a federal agency finds itself defending a lawsuit after rejecting a job candidate who disclosed the sacramental use of ayahuasca. The case, which involves an applicant seeking a position with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), serves as a critical reminder for both public and private sector employers that categorical employment policies—particularly those regarding drug screenings—cannot supersede the legal requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The litigation, Reis v. Noem, centers on the agency’s decision to withdraw a tentative job offer after the applicant, during a mandatory polygraph examination, disclosed that she consumed ayahuasca biweekly as a core tenet of her Christian Spiritist faith. Ayahuasca, a potent psychoactive brew traditionally used in certain Amazonian religious practices, contains N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

When the applicant provided this information, the polygraph examiner halted the proceedings, and an agency adjudicator subsequently classified the disclosure as evidence of “recent illegal drug use.” Despite the applicant’s efforts to provide documentation and context regarding the religious nature of the practice, the agency rescinded its offer of employment within days. The federal court’s decision to allow the case to proceed to discovery suggests that, while agencies have broad authority to vet candidates, they are not immune to claims of religious discrimination when they fail to engage in the interactive process required by federal law.

A Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict began during the rigorous background investigation phase of the federal hiring process. For applicants seeking sensitive law enforcement roles, the federal government mandates a series of background checks, including polygraph examinations designed to uncover potential security risks, including illicit drug use.

According to court filings, the timeline of events reflects a rapid transition from a qualified candidate to a rejected applicant:

• The Disclosure: During the polygraph, the applicant was asked about drug use. In a display of transparency, she revealed her biweekly participation in a religious ceremony involving ayahuasca.
• The Adjudication: The examiner, adhering to standard protocols, flagged the response. The agency’s adjudicator deemed the use of the substance to be a disqualifying factor, citing the federal prohibition on DMT.
• The Rejection: The applicant submitted a formal, written statement explaining the religious context of her consumption, asserting that her practice was protected. However, the agency withdrew the tentative offer shortly thereafter without further discussion.
• The Litigation: The applicant filed suit, alleging disparate treatment and failure to accommodate her religious practices under Title VII.
• The Ruling: In 2026, the presiding judge denied the agency’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the agency’s reliance on a blanket drug policy did not automatically insulate it from a failure-to-accommodate claim.

The Legal Framework: Title VII and Religious Accommodation

Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or applicant’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances, provided that doing so does not impose an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the employer’s business. In the context of the federal government, this is further complicated by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires the government to demonstrate that any substantial burden on religious exercise is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

The agency’s defense relied heavily on the premise that its drug policy is a non-negotiable safety requirement for law enforcement personnel. However, the court highlighted a significant precedent: the Supreme Court has previously addressed the use of ayahuasca by specific religious denominations. In cases such as Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the Court held that the government could not categorically prohibit the use of sacramental ayahuasca without demonstrating a compelling interest—a hurdle that the government often fails to clear when specific, controlled religious practices are involved.

By failing to engage in an “interactive process”—a dialogue intended to explore whether an accommodation could be made without compromising safety or security—the agency effectively bypassed the legal requirement to determine if the applicant’s religious practice actually presented an undue hardship.

Data and Implications for the Workforce

While the federal government occupies a unique position in employment law, the lessons from this case are highly relevant to private-sector employers. Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that religious discrimination charges have remained a consistent portion of total annual filings, with many cases involving requests for exceptions to workplace policies, such as dress codes, scheduling, or, increasingly, substance-related conduct.

For private employers, the challenge lies in the "knockout rule." Many companies utilize automated software or rigid, policy-driven workflows to filter out candidates who disclose past or current use of substances that appear on a standard panel. When a candidate discloses that a substance is used for religious or medical purposes, an automated system—or an untrained recruiter—may immediately flag the candidate for rejection, thereby triggering a potential Title VII violation before a human being has evaluated the sincerity of the request or the feasibility of an accommodation.

Addressing the "Safety and Security" Defense

A common refrain among employers, particularly in safety-sensitive industries like transportation, manufacturing, and law enforcement, is that any substance-related religious practice constitutes an inherent safety risk. However, the ruling in Reis v. Noem clarifies that simply labeling an action as a "safety risk" is insufficient.

To satisfy the "undue hardship" standard, employers must move beyond labels and demonstrate, through a factual record, that a specific accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. In this instance, the agency failed to provide evidence that the applicant’s biweekly religious practice would have impacted her ability to perform her duties safely or effectively. The court’s message is clear: if an employer wishes to deny a religious accommodation, they must be prepared to prove that they considered the request seriously and that no alternative existed.

Strategic Recommendations for HR Professionals

To mitigate the risk of similar litigation, human resources departments and recruitment teams should consider the following operational adjustments:

1. The "Pause" Mechanism: Develop a protocol where an automatic "red flag" on a background check or drug screen does not lead to an immediate rejection. Instead, the process should pause to allow for an internal review by HR and legal counsel.
2. Interactive Process Training: Train recruiters and hiring managers to recognize when an applicant is stating a religious or medical reason for an action that would otherwise be disqualifying. Once identified, this should trigger an immediate referral to an accommodation specialist.
3. Individualized Assessment: Move away from "one-size-fits-all" policies. Every request for religious accommodation should be subject to an individualized assessment that evaluates the sincerity of the belief and the nature of the requested accommodation relative to the specific job functions.
4. Documentation of Undue Hardship: If a request is denied, the employer must be able to document exactly why the accommodation was not feasible. Vague references to "company policy" or "general safety" are unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny in the current legal climate.

Conclusion

The case of the applicant and her sacramental ayahuasca use underscores the evolving nature of religious accommodation in the modern workplace. As cultural and religious practices continue to diversify, employers who rely on rigid, exclusionary policies risk not only legal liability but also the loss of qualified talent. The judiciary has signaled that the burden remains on the employer to justify why a policy must be applied in a categorical manner, especially when a constitutional or statutory right to religious expression is at play. Moving forward, the most successful organizations will be those that integrate empathy and legal compliance into their screening processes, ensuring that every applicant is treated with the individualized attention the law requires.