Alexander Smith, a Christian firefighter and Air Mask Technician for Atlantic City, New Jersey, sued the City after being denied his request to wear a beard, which he believed was mandated by his faith. “Smith believes men should grow and maintain beards based on the teachings of Holy Scripture and early Christian theologians. Beards, Smith says, emulate Jesus Christ and the biblical prophets; they are symbols of masculinity, maturity, and man’s natural role as ‘head and leader.’” Smith was barred from responding to fires during the pendency of the City’s consideration, during which his captain repeatedly told him to shave. Once the City made its decision, Smith was told to shave or face suspension without pay. He chose to sue.
The City’s grooming policy prohibited beards to ensure proper sealing of self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs), critical for firefighter safety. Smith, who maintained SCBAs but had not engaged in fire suppression since 2015, argued the policy violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII.
The City’s grooming policy prohibited beards to ensure proper sealing of self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs), critical for firefighter safety. Smith, who maintained SCBAs but had not engaged in fire suppression since 2015, argued the policy violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on Smith’s Free Exercise and Title VII claims. The Court found the grooming policy not “generally applicable” because it included discretionary exceptions, such as allowing captains to deviate from SCBA rules and exempting administrative staff from fit-testing. These exceptions, the Court held, undermined the City’s claim that the policy was uniformly applied. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court ruled the City’s safety interest, while compelling, was not narrowly tailored, as alternatives like reclassifying Smith or fit-testing him with a beard existed.
For the Title VII claim, the Court rejected the City’s argument that it had acted in “good faith,” emphasizing that employers must prove undue hardship, which the City failed to do, given Smith’s limited firefighting role. However, the Court affirmed dismissal of Smith’s retaliation and Equal Protection claims, citing insufficient evidence of causation or unequal treatment.
Smith v. City of Atlantic City, 138 F.4th 759 (3d. Cir. 2025).