Millions want to invest their retirement savings in fossil-free funds.

For nearly eight in ten Americans, faith is part of daily life. It shapes how people act, what they buy, and where they put their money. But most American workers have little say in where their workplace retirement savings are invested. That decision belongs largely to their employer.

For Dr. Andrew Hartley, his retirement plan has been quietly working against his beliefs. Dr. Hartley is a statistical science director whose faith directs him to steward and protect the planet and shapes how he lives: he cycles almost everywhere, banks with an institution that doesn't fund fossil fuels, and helps lead two environmental religious organizations. So, when he asked his employer — Thermo Fisher Scientific, a $180 billion life sciences company publicly committed to a "healthier, cleaner, safer" world — for a single fossil-free fund option in his retirement plan, he expected to be heard. Instead, the company chose to ignore him for over a year.

So, we're taking Thermo Fisher to court in a case that could set a legal precedent that workers across the U.S. have a right to demand fossil-free retirement options that align with their beliefs.

Thermo Fisher and the fossil-free 401(k) request it chose to ignore

Thermo Fisher’s stated mission is to make the world "healthier, cleaner, and safer." It has publicly acknowledged that "urgent action is needed to avoid the worst aspects of climate change."

Yet every equity investment option in Thermo Fisher's 401(k) plan puts money into companies that extract and burn oil, coal, and gas. That means Dr. Hartley faces a choice: compromise his faith or forfeit a meaningful part of his compensation.

In October 2024, Dr. Hartley asked Thermo Fisher to add a single fossil-free fund option — the kind that is widely available and is offered by many other large employers — that would allow him to invest for retirement without violating his beliefs. He even provided a list of suitable options for the company to choose from.

Thermo Fisher ignored his request. When Dr. Hartley reiterated the request and cited the law, Thermo Fisher passed it to its investment committee. Then it went silent. He followed up repeatedly, but his employer failed to grant the request.

How a Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom changed the rules

The legal foundation for this case comes from an unlikely place. In 2023, the Supreme Court strengthened workers’ right to religious accommodation. In Groff v. DeJoy, the court ruled that employers cannot deny religious accommodations just because they create minor inconvenience or trivial cost. Employers must show a genuine, substantial burden on the business.

This matters here because Dr. Hartley’s request was not unduly burdensome on the large company that employed him: he merely wanted one additional fossil-free fund — a common, widely available option that would allow him to save for retirement without violating his faith. Thermo Fisher has offered no explanation for why that would be a substantial burden on its business.

What a win would make possible

This case is bigger than one company, and bigger than one employee's retirement account.

Around 100 million Americans belong to faith communities that have taken official positions in favor of caring for the earth — among them the US Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, Reform and Conservative Judaism, and the Islamic Society of North America. For many of these people, the conflict Dr. Hartley faces is real and personal.

A win in this case could establish the legal precedent that workers across the U.S. have a right to demand fossil-free retirement options that align with their beliefs — turning a single accommodation request into a nationwide pathway for cutting off one of the quietest but most significant financial lifelines to the fossil fuel industry.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in Americans' retirement savings flow into fossil fuel companies, not because workers choose it, but because no one told them they had a choice. This case changes that.