A newly filed lawsuit asks a question that retirement plan committees may never have considered: Must an employer take an employee’s religious beliefs into account when selecting 401(k) investments?
Dr. Andrew Hartley, a statistical science director at Thermo Fisher Scientific, is suing his employer after requesting a fossil-fuel-free investment option in the company’s 401(k) plan. Hartley is a Christian and an active member of the United Methodist Church. He believes that investing in and profiting from fossil-fuel companies violates his religious obligation to care for the Earth.
According to the complaint, Hartley first requested a religious accommodation in October 2024. Thermo Fisher allegedly responded that his request did not qualify as a religious accommodation. Hartley later supplied supporting materials and identified several possible investment options. After additional follow-up attempts, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and eventually received authorization to sue.
Thermo Fisher has not yet responded to the allegations in court and has declined to comment publicly on the pending litigation. At this stage, we have only Hartley’s account of what occurred.
A Religious Belief, Not Merely a Political Preference
Hartley’s position has a recognizable biblical foundation.
Genesis 2:15 says that God placed humanity in the Garden of Eden “to farm it and to take care of it.” Psalm 24 states that the Earth and everything in it belong to God. Leviticus describes people as temporary occupants of land that ultimately belongs to God.
Hartley’s denomination is even more direct. The United Methodist Church calls upon its members to practice responsible stewardship, reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and recognize financial decisions as part of religious discipleship.
A court does not have to decide whether Hartley’s interpretation represents the only Christian position on fossil fuels. Religious beliefs do not lose legal protection merely because other members of the same faith interpret their obligations differently. The central question is whether Hartley sincerely holds the belief.
The complaint supports that sincerity with more than words. Hartley reportedly follows a plant-based diet, bicycles extensively, avoids fossil-fuel financing in other parts of his life, participates in Christian environmental organizations, and donates to environmental causes.
What Thermo Fisher’s Form 5500 Reveals
Thermo Fisher’s 2025 Form 5500 adds important context.
This is not a small retirement plan. The plan held approximately $11.7 billion for more than 68,000 participants at the end of 2025. Its investment schedule included:
T. Rowe Price target-date trusts
State Street U.S. and international index funds
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth
Capital Group EuroPacific Growth
Jennison U.S. Small-Cap Equity
Bond and stable-value investments
Thermo Fisher company stock
Approximately $7.9 billion was invested in the T. Rowe Price target-date trusts alone.
The filing does not show a plainly identifiable fossil-fuel-free, sustainable, or religiously screened equity option. A participant seeking broad stock-market diversification without fossil-fuel exposure therefore appears to have no obvious choice on the designated menu.
That does not prove that Thermo Fisher violated the law. It does establish that Hartley’s objection concerns the structure of the available menu, not one obscure holding buried inside an otherwise fossil-fuel-free portfolio.
Religious Investing Is Not a New Idea
The investment industry has long recognized that religious beliefs can affect investment decisions.
Ave Maria Mutual Funds screen investments according to Catholic principles. The Amana Funds limit their investments to securities consistent with Islamic principles, including restrictions involving interest, alcohol, gambling, pork processing, and certain financial businesses.
The existence of these funds does not mean that every employer must place every requested religious fund in its 401(k). Plan committees remain responsible for examining cost, investment quality, diversification, recordkeeper availability, and ongoing monitoring.
However, these funds demonstrate that religiously screened investing is neither hypothetical nor administratively impossible.
If a Catholic employee objects to particular business practices, or a Muslim employee cannot invest in a fund because it earns interest or holds prohibited businesses, most people can understand why the request might deserve consideration. A Christian belief concerning stewardship of the Earth should not receive less serious treatment simply because it overlaps with environmental concerns.
Religious freedom cannot depend on whether the belief is politically familiar.
The Legal Test Has Changed
Federal law requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship.
In the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the Court clarified that an employer must demonstrate substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business. Minor inconvenience is not enough.
This does not necessarily give Hartley the right to select the exact fund he wants. A reasonable accommodation could take several forms:
Adding an acceptable fossil-fuel-free fund
Providing access through a brokerage window
Identifying an existing investment that satisfies the restriction
Developing another arrangement that permits meaningful participation without violating his belief
Thermo Fisher may eventually demonstrate that Hartley’s proposed accommodation would create substantial costs or genuine operational problems. However, a plan of this size has considerable purchasing power and access to institutional investments. The company will likely need more than a general claim that adding an option would be inconvenient.
The allegation that concerns me most is not simply that Thermo Fisher declined to add a fund. It is that the company allegedly concluded that Hartley’s request did not qualify as religious and then failed to engage meaningfully with him.
An employer may have valid reasons for declining a particular investment. It should still listen, investigate the available alternatives, document its analysis, and provide a substantive response.
A Broader Question for Plan Committees
If Hartley succeeds, the decision could extend beyond fossil fuels.
Participants might raise religious objections involving weapons, abortion, animal welfare, alcohol, gambling, interest-based financial services, or other activities. This does not mean that 401(k) menus must become unlimited collections of personal preferences.
It may mean that plan committees need a defined process for receiving and evaluating religious accommodation requests.
That process should distinguish a sincerely held religious belief from a general investment preference. It should also bring together the people responsible for employment matters and those responsible for the retirement plan. Neither group should assume the other has handled the question.
The Parting Glass
Hartley has not yet proven his case. Thermo Fisher has not yet presented its defense.
Nevertheless, the central principle deserves attention. Employees should not automatically be forced to choose between participating fully in an employer-provided retirement plan and following a sincerely held religious belief.
A plan committee does not have to approve every requested fund. It should be prepared to listen, examine reasonable alternatives, and explain its decision.
If religious accommodation applies to work schedules, clothing, food, and other employment practices, it is fair to ask why it should stop at the 401(k) menu.
#401k #ReligiousAccommodation #SustainableInvesting