Uniform Unpaid-Leave Religious Accommodations Support Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certification Under Title VII

I. Introduction

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026), United Airlines employees challenged United’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and—more specifically—United’s handling of requests for religious and medical accommodations. The plaintiffs alleged unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), contending that United failed to offer reasonable accommodations and instead imposed coercive and punitive alternatives, including indefinite unpaid leave and masking-and-testing requirements.

The procedural posture was a cross-appeal from a class-certification order. Plaintiffs sought certification of (1) a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class, (2) a Rule 23(b)(3) masking-and-testing subclass, and (3) a Rule 23(b)(3) unpaid-leave subclass. The district court denied the (b)(2) class and masking-and-testing subclass; it also excluded medical-accommodation (ADA) claimants from the unpaid-leave subclass for lack of commonality, but it certified a modified unpaid-leave subclass limited to religious-accommodation seekers (customer-facing employees) placed on unpaid leave. The Fifth Circuit affirmed across the board under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

II. Summary of the Opinion

  • Appellate standing/aggrievement: Plaintiffs Kincannon and Sambrano could appeal denials of certification even though they were members of the certified subclass, because they were “aggrieved” by the partial denial and had an “individual interest” in broader certification (e.g., attorney’s fees and punitive damages “pot”). The court relied on Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper and Forney v. Apfel.
  • Rule 23(b)(2) class rejected: Because punitive damages would require individualized inquiries given differing downstream impacts of the policy (vaccinated vs. unpaid leave vs. resignation), monetary relief predominated under Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., making (b)(2) certification improper.
  • Masking-and-testing subclass rejected: The alleged “adverse employment action” varied materially by employee, defeating commonality and predominance.
  • ADA unpaid-leave subclass excluded: ADA disability status requires individualized assessment; United’s act of granting exemptions did not establish ADA-qualifying disability.
  • Religious unpaid-leave subclass affirmed: For customer-facing employees accommodated uniformly with unpaid leave, common liability issues predominated; damages (notably backpay and punitive damages) were sufficiently susceptible to classwide proof, even if compensatory damages would require individual proceedings.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Appellate standing to challenge class-certification rulings

  • Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper: The court used Roper to recognize that named plaintiffs may appeal adverse class-certification determinations even if their individual interests have been satisfied, because they retain a personal stake in shifting litigation costs and enlarging recovery mechanisms (including fees and punitive damages).
  • Forney v. Apfel: Reinforced that a party is “aggrieved” when a court grants in part and denies in part the requested remedy—supporting appellate standing for the partial denials here.

2. Standards for reviewing class certification

  • Sampson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co., and Cleven v. Mid-Am. Apartment Cmtys., Inc.: Provided the Fifth Circuit’s deferential “abuse of discretion” framework, while preserving de novo review for legal-standard errors.

3. Rule 23’s “rigorous analysis” and core class concepts

  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: Supplied the modern articulation of commonality—plaintiffs must share a “common contention” whose truth can be resolved “in one stroke,” and Rule 23(b)(2) requires “indivisible” injunctive relief.
  • Comcast Corp. v. Behrend: Cited for the class action’s exceptional nature and, later, for the notion that a Rule 23(b)(3) class typically must show a workable classwide damages measurement approach.
  • Califano v. Yamasaki: Quoted through Comcast/Wal-Mart to emphasize that class actions are an exception to individual litigation.
  • John v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co.: Referenced for the Fifth Circuit’s ascertainability requirement.

4. Rule 23(b)(2) limits when monetary relief is sought

  • Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.: The central Fifth Circuit authority. It allows monetary relief in (b)(2) only if “incidental” to injunction/declaration, meaning it flows directly from classwide liability without individualized adjudication. Allison also discusses punitive damages: classwide punitive damages may be possible when the “entire class or subclass is subjected to the same discriminatory act or series of acts,” but must remain incidental.
  • Washington v. CSC Credit Servs. Inc.: Applied Allison’s approach—if damages require separate adjudication, they predominate and (b)(2) is improper.

5. Predominance and the handling of individualized damages issues

  • Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo and Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor: Supplied the definition and intensity of predominance; predominance is “far more demanding” than commonality, but certification can still be appropriate even if some matters (including damages) require separate proceedings.
  • Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs., Inc. and Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC: Fifth Circuit gloss on predominance—common issues must constitute a “significant part” of individual cases.
  • Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: Used to reject the argument that the possibility of individualized rebuttal defeats predominance (“pick off” point).
  • Cruson v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.: Cited for the Fifth Circuit’s statement that plaintiffs must present a damages model showing classwide measurability, while the panel acknowledged “tension” with Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, Sampson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, and Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs., Inc..
  • Angell v. GEICO Advantage Ins. Co.: Reinforced that some individual calculation does not necessarily defeat predominance.
  • Bertulli v. Indep. Ass'n of Cont'l Pilots: Supported the idea that damages management might require later reconsideration of class treatment but does not automatically defeat certification.

6. Title VII accommodation doctrine and “undue hardship” after Groff

  • Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc. and Davis v. Ft. Bend Cnty.: Provided the Fifth Circuit’s Title VII religious accommodation framework (prima facie case; then reasonable accommodation or undue hardship).
  • Tagore v. United States: Cited (as abrogated on other grounds by Groff) for the prima facie formulation.
  • Groff v. DeJoy: Defined undue hardship as “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business,” shaping how the panel evaluated United’s claim that alternatives to unpaid leave were too burdensome.
  • Hebrew v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just.: Emphasized the employer’s “positive duty” to accommodate and to consider alternatives sua sponte if a requested accommodation is an undue hardship.
  • Carter v. Local 556, Transp. Workers Union of Am.: Confirmed undue hardship as a defense to a failure-to-accommodate claim.
  • Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC: Quoted via Hebrew for the proposition (as the panel framed it) that the employer must show “any and all accommodations” would impose undue hardship.

7. Religious sincerity and its class-action treatment

  • Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. and Tagore v. United States: Provided the “light touch” approach—courts avoid probing doctrine and focus on sincerity as a factual, often easily satisfied issue.
  • Wright v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.: Described sincerity as credibility-driven and often proved by the plaintiff’s assertions and mixed reasons.
  • United States v. Seeger: Used to define “religious” belief broadly (occupying a place parallel to God).
  • Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. EEOC: Distinguished. The majority treated Braidwood not as a categorical bar to class treatment of sincerity, but as a caution that sincerity cannot be ignored at certification; district courts must actually analyze it.
  • Mahmoud v. Taylor: Cited (via Wright) to explain that additional non-religious reasons do not negate religious sincerity.

8. Adverse employment action variability and masking/testing claims

  • Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: Invoked for the “some harm” standard for Title VII discrimination (term/condition of employment).
  • EEOC v. LHC Grp., Inc.: Used to restate the ADA prima facie requirement of an adverse employment decision.
  • Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 3d 652: The district court’s earlier merits ruling that masking/testing alone was not a sufficient adverse action was treated as not properly on appeal in this Rule 23(f) proceeding.

9. ADA disability as an individualized inquiry

  • Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P. and Chandler v. City of Dall.: Fifth Circuit authority that disability/qualification determinations are individualized.
  • Davoll v. Webb: Out-of-circuit support for denying class certification when disability status requires individualized inquiries.
  • Newkirk v. Pierre: Plaintiffs’ cited example where a district court found commonality despite diverse disabilities; the Fifth Circuit treated it as non-binding and insufficient to show abuse of discretion.

10. Superiority and efficiency rationales

  • Ibe v. Jones and In re TWL Corp.: Guided the superiority inquiry as a comparative, fact-specific assessment of alternative procedures.
  • Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. and Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.: Cited for the efficiency purpose of Rule 23(b)(3) and the “negative value suit” concept, though the panel did not treat that as dispositive.
  • Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found.: Quoted for assessing the “relevant claims, defenses, facts, and substantive law” in deciding class cohesiveness/superiority.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Why the Rule 23(b)(2) class failed

The court accepted that United’s initial unpaid-leave policy allegedly “coerced” employees, echoing the earlier preliminary-injunction appeal (Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-11159, 2022 WL 486610) where the Fifth Circuit found irreparable harm in the “ongoing coercion” of choosing between religious conviction and indefinite loss of pay. But for Rule 23(b)(2), the key defect was remedies structure: plaintiffs sought punitive damages and the district court found class members experienced materially different outcomes (vaccination, unpaid leave, job change, or separation), making punitive damages non-incidental and requiring individualized determinations. Under Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., that predominance of individualized monetary issues is incompatible with (b)(2).

2. Why the masking-and-testing subclass failed

The district court treated “masking-and-testing” as not, by itself, a sufficient adverse employment action (a merits determination not pursued in this appeal). Even assuming the policy could qualify, the court found the subclass’s alleged injuries were not uniform: impeded communication, harassment, breathing difficulty, being forced to eat alone, and other divergent experiences. Because an “adverse employment action” is an element of both the Title VII and ADA prima facie cases (per Davis v. Ft. Bend Cnty. and EEOC v. LHC Grp., Inc.), that variability required individualized evidence and undermined predominance.

3. Why the ADA unpaid-leave subclass was properly excluded

The Fifth Circuit emphasized that ADA “disability” is defined statutorily and requires individualized proof: impairment, substantial limitation of a major life activity, record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such impairment. United’s decision to grant medical exemptions did not establish ADA coverage because United granted exemptions for medical reasons beyond ADA disabilities (including pregnancy, nursing, and contraindications), and a company’s internal practice does not substitute for statutory elements. The need to prove disability status across diverse medical conditions created individualized issues that defeated Rule 23(b)(3) cohesiveness.

4. Why the religious unpaid-leave subclass was properly certified

The certified subclass was defined by a uniform accommodation imposed on customer-facing employees granted religious exemptions: indefinite unpaid leave (with an option to apply for non-customer-facing positions). The panel affirmed three key determinations:

  • Commonality: The court treated central liability issues as common: (i) whether unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation, and (ii) whether other feasible accommodations existed without imposing undue hardship. On sincerity, the majority held that common evidence—uniform exemption requests, third-party letters, acceptance of unpaid leave, and sustained litigation— could support classwide presentation, while preserving the employer’s ability to contest sincerity for particular members during “class rostering” or other mechanisms. (Judge Willett’s concurrence agreed certification could be affirmed without deciding whether sincerity itself is classwide-common.)
  • Predominance: Common liability questions predominated. Even if some individualized sincerity disputes arise, the possibility of “picking off” some members does not defeat predominance (Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.).
  • Damages manageability: Backpay could be computed using United’s payroll data and a formulaic approach; punitive damages could be handled with a classwide method (e.g., multiplier) producing individualized awards. Compensatory (emotional-distress) damages were acknowledged as inherently individualized under Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., but their presence did not defeat predominance given the primacy of common liability issues.

C. Impact

1. Employment class actions challenging uniform accommodations

The decision strengthens the viability of Rule 23(b)(3) classes where an employer responds to religious accommodation requests with a uniform policy that itself constitutes the alleged adverse action (here, indefinite unpaid leave). The court distinguished such uniform-harm subclasses from broader groups where downstream employee choices create remedial and injury divergence (which defeated (b)(2) treatment).

2. Religious sincerity disputes: certification not categorically barred, but management matters

The majority rejects any categorical rule that sincerity issues inherently preclude class certification, emphasizing procedural tools (e.g., class membership challenges during rostering) and the limited significance of individualized rebuttal at certification. Judge Willett cautions against overreading this as a general holding that sincerity is commonly provable, urging narrower decision-making and stressing the need to preserve jury adjudication of sincerity objections where damages are sought. Practically, district courts in the Fifth Circuit are likely to treat sincerity as a manageable issue if (a) the class is defined around standardized employer processes and (b) the court builds a workable mechanism to handle member-specific sincerity objections without letting them overwhelm the common trial.

3. ADA class claims remain difficult where disabilities vary

The opinion reinforces a skeptical approach to ADA classes when class membership depends on heterogeneous medical conditions requiring individualized proof of statutory “disability.” Employers’ internal exemption decisions will not substitute for ADA elements, making such classes vulnerable at commonality/predominance.

4. Masking-and-testing claims face “adverse action” variability problems

Even apart from merits disputes over whether masking/testing is actionable, the decision signals a certification obstacle: employees’ experiences with such measures can differ too widely to supply the “same injury” needed for commonality and predominance, especially when adverse action is an element of liability.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Rule 23(b)(2) vs. Rule 23(b)(3): (b)(2) is for cohesive groups seeking a single injunction/declaration benefiting everyone together; monetary relief must be merely “incidental.” (b)(3) is for damages-oriented classes and demands that common issues “predominate” and that a class action be the “superior” method.
  • Commonality: Not just “same law violated,” but a shared dispute that can be answered for everyone at once (the “one stroke” idea from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes).
  • Predominance: A higher bar than commonality; asks whether common questions will drive the litigation more than individualized ones.
  • Reasonable accommodation / undue hardship (Title VII): Employers must reasonably accommodate religious practice unless doing so would impose “undue hardship,” meaning (after Groff v. DeJoy) substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s business.
  • Backpay vs. compensatory vs. punitive damages: Backpay is usually payroll-based and often formula-friendly; compensatory damages for emotional harm are subjective and individualized; punitive damages punish intentional misconduct and can raise individualization concerns depending on how class members were affected.
  • Class rostering: The process of identifying who is (and is not) actually in the class, often involving claim forms and objections—here suggested as a point where United could challenge particular members’ sincerity.

V. Conclusion

Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. draws a practical line in employment class litigation over COVID-era accommodation policies: broad injunctive classes falter when individualized monetary remedies (notably punitive damages tied to divergent employee outcomes) predominate under Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.; masking-and-testing subclasses fail when the alleged adverse action is too individualized; ADA subclasses fail when statutory disability status requires individualized proof. But where an employer imposes a uniform, allegedly unreasonable accommodation—indefinite unpaid leave—on a defined group of religious accommodation seekers, the Fifth Circuit endorses Rule 23(b)(3) certification because common liability questions predominate and class treatment can efficiently resolve the controversy, with individualized issues managed through targeted procedures rather than used to defeat certification wholesale.