Novel 401(k) Case Argues Fossil Fuel-Free Investments Are ‘Religious Accommodation’

A Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. employee filed a novel federal lawsuit arguing that employers must offer fossil-fuel-free retirement investment options as a religious accommodation, creating a new legal test for environmental, social and governance investing.

Andrew Hartley, a statistical science director at Thermo Fisher, alleges the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and New York’s Human Rights Law by refusing to add a fossil-fuel-free fund to its 401(k) plan after he said investing in fossil fuel companies conflicted with his religious obligation of environmental stewardship. Rather than seeking broad changes to the company’s retirement plan, Hartley, who identified himself as a Christian in the complaint, asked Thermo Fisher to add a single alternative investment option that excluded fossil fuel holdings, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit could have implications far beyond one employer.

While the national ESG debate has largely centered on whether companies and asset managers should consider environmental and social factors in investment decisions, Hartley’s case reframes the issue through the lens of religious accommodation law. Instead of arguing employers should adopt ESG principles, the complaint contends that workers with sincerely held religious beliefs may have a legal right to investment options that align with those beliefs if providing them would not impose an undue hardship on employers. The case also tests the practical reach of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which raised the standard employers must meet to deny religious accommodation.

Usually, the ESG debate centers on the consideration of factors in investment decisions. For instance, the rule adopted during President Donald Trump’s first term, likely to be readopted, stated that fiduciaries could only consider pecuniary factors when making investment decisions. Former President Joe Biden’s ESG rule, which was rescinded, allowed fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when deciding between two investments of equal value.

According to the complaint against Thermo Fisher, Hartley says Christian teachings require caring for the environment and that personally profiting from companies contributing to climate change violates those convictions. Because every equity option in Thermo Fisher’s 401(k) allegedly includes significant investments in fossil fuel companies, Hartley says he must either compromise his beliefs or forgo part of the retirement benefits available through his employment.

According to the complaint, Hartley first requested an accommodation in October 2024, asking Thermo Fisher to add a fossil-fuel-free investment option. The company initially responded that the request did not qualify as a religious accommodation but said it would forward the matter to its investment committee, according to the complaint. Hartley says he continued corresponding with the company, including providing legal support for his request and examples of suitable funds, but never received a substantive response despite repeated follow-ups throughout 2025.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and an order requiring Thermo Fisher to provide a reasonable religious accommodation and implement policies to prevent religious discrimination.

ClientEarth, which represents Hartley, says the case is the first to invoke Groff v. DeJoy to secure fossil-free retirement investment options. In Groff, the Supreme Court unanimously held that employers denying religious accommodations must show the request would impose a substantial burden on business operations, replacing a lower standard that courts had applied for decades.

In a statement released, Hartley said he had spent years trying to align his financial life with his religious convictions but believed his employer continued investing his retirement savings in companies he views as contributing to climate change. Ben Segal, an attorney for ClientEarth, said the case could establish that environmental stewardship, when rooted in sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, deserves the same workplace protections as other religious convictions.

The lawsuit arrives as traditional ESG investing has become politically fraught. Republican-led states have challenged asset managers and financial institutions over the use of ESG criteria, while many corporations have softened or rebranded ESG initiatives amid political scrutiny. Yet the Hartley case illustrates that environmental considerations could enter workplaces through a different legal avenue—religious accommodation, rather than corporate sustainability policy.

The case was filed in the Buffalo division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where the plaintiff requested a jury trial.