Atlantic City Settles Firefighter Beard Case After Third Circuit Revives Religious Accommodation Claims

The City of Atlantic City has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a long-running lawsuit brought by firefighter Alexander Smith, resolving claims that the Atlantic City Fire Department violated federal law by refusing to allow him to wear a beard as an expression of his Christian faith.

According to a statement issued by First Liberty Institute, the settlement secures Smith’s right to wear a beard on duty, provides back pay and benefits, and requires changes to the department’s grooming policy to ensure religious accommodations consistent with federal law. However, under the terms of the settlement, Smith will be placed on paid leave status with full salary and benefits until his retirement, rather than returning to active duty.

The agreement brings to a close litigation that had been pending since 2019 and that was significantly reshaped by a 2025 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Smith worked for the Atlantic City Fire Department as an Air Mask Technician, a position responsible for maintaining and refilling SCBA air tanks used by firefighters at fire scenes. Although classified as a firefighter and covered by the firefighters’ collective bargaining agreement, Smith had not engaged in fire suppression since 2015 and was specifically assigned to operate the air unit rather than fight fires. Smith asserted that his religious beliefs required him to grow and maintain a beard. The department denied his request, citing its grooming standards, which prohibit beards because of concerns that facial hair can interfere with the seal of an SCBA mask.

Atlantic City prevailed at the trial court. In November 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the grooming policy was neutral, generally applicable, and justified by firefighter safety. Here is our earlier coverage.

The Third Circuit, however, reached a different conclusion on key claims and sent the case back for further proceedings. In its May 30, 2025 decision, the Third Circuit vacated the judgment on Smith’s Free Exercise Clause claim and his Title VII religious accommodation claim, while affirming dismissal of his Equal Protection and retaliation claims.

A central issue for the court was whether Atlantic City’s grooming rule was truly “generally applicable.” Under Supreme Court precedent, a neutral policy that is applied uniformly is usually reviewed under a deferential standard. But if a policy contains exceptions that undermine the government’s stated interest, it may trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny.

The Third Circuit identified two features of Atlantic City’s practices that, in its view, defeated general applicability. First, the City routinely exempted administrative firefighters, including Smith, from annual SCBA fit testing, even though fit testing serves the same safety purpose as the grooming rule—ensuring a proper mask seal. Second, the City’s respiratory protection policy allowed captains to exercise discretion and permit deviations from SCBA requirements, placing responsibility on the captain rather than enforcing a uniform rule.

Because these exceptions allowed conduct that could undermine the City’s stated safety interest while denying an accommodation for religious reasons, the court concluded the policy was not generally applicable. As a result, the Free Exercise claim was subject to strict scrutiny, not rational basis review.

Applying that standard, the Third Circuit acknowledged that firefighter safety is a compelling interest, but concluded the City had not shown that denying Smith’s request was narrowly tailored. The court noted that no Air Mask Technician had been required to engage in fire suppression for decades, that Smith could have been reassigned or reclassified, and that the City had never attempted to determine whether Smith could safely pass an SCBA fit test while wearing a beard.

The court reached a similar conclusion under Title VII, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy. The Third Circuit emphasized that once an employee establishes a prima facie case for religious accommodation, an employer must show that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship, meaning a substantial burden in the overall context of operations. On the record before it, the court held Atlantic City had not made that showing as a matter of law.

The court did, however, affirm dismissal of Smith’s retaliation and equal protection claims. While Smith had engaged in protected activity and suffered discipline following a tropical storm emergency, the court concluded he failed to establish a causal connection sufficient to sustain a retaliation claim, and that he lacked a valid comparator for equal protection purposes.

Following the Third Circuit’s ruling, the case returned to the district court. The newly announced settlement resolves the matter without further litigation. Here is a copy of the Third Circuit’s decision and the settlement consent decree: