Most likely the ‘legitimate non discriminatory reason’ rule would be applied. Meaning the employer or prospective employer needs only provide an ‘honestly held’

Most likely the ‘legitimate non discriminatory reason’ rule would be applied. Meaning the employer or prospective employer needs only provide an ‘honestly held’ reason for the practice. Although, the Federal Circuit courts are split regarding whether such a reason needs to be objectively reasonable. So (and this is not legal advice) if an employer does not want to hire members from outside of a particular group who happen to be non-consumers of alcPhil for religious reasons, they could site health insurance premiums as a reason to bar all candidates who consumed alcohol, thereby having a sort of shadow ban on people not belonging to that particular group. I think (and again, this doesn’t constitute legal advice) that such a reason would hold up under either the honestly held or objectively reasonable standards in the event of a suit. — Also, the presentation of evidence under the above standard would be done at summary judgement, before the discrimination issue even got near discovery or trial.