Religious Accommodation Lessons From Recent EEOC Focus
This article was first published by Law360: Religious Accommodation Lessons From Recent EEOC Focus
Following recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement actions, religious accommodation is returning to the forefront of employers’ compliance concerns.
On Aug. 27, the EEOC issued a press release formally announcing a $150,000 settlement with Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, resolving allegations that it failed to accommodate a retail employee’s observance of the Sabbath, retaliated against him for complaining about religious discrimination and later terminated him because of his religion.
The employee, who had worked at Apple for 16 years, requested Fridays and Saturdays
off after converting to Judaism in 2023. According to the EEOC, Apple denied the request because it conflicted with a new weekend scheduling policy.
The settlement in EEOC v. Apple also requires Apple to revise its religious observance policy, train managers and human resources personnel, and provide written explanations for accommodation denials. Apple must also periodically report religious accommodation denials and complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC during the two-year decree.
Apple may be the most high-profile employer recently involved in such a case, but its settlement is not an outlier. This year, the EEOC has pursued a series of religious accommodation matters, discussed below, involving Sabbath observance and grooming and dress requirements. This enforcement activity comes at a time of heightened attention to religious identity and expression in American public life.
Employers may increasingly find themselves managing familiar requests related to religious holidays and diet, as well as questions about prayer, religious dress and grooming, and other religious expressions in the workplace. This can be particularly challenging when co-workers hold their own beliefs, or when unfamiliarity with a religious practice leads to assumptions, discomfort or objections to an accommodation.
Navigating these competing considerations requires more than deciding whether to grant or deny a request. Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, employers should be prepared to identify the actual burden an accommodation imposes, distinguish operational hardship from discomfort or objection, consider reasonable alternatives, and pay attention to how the accommodation is implemented.
Groff raised the bar, but didn’t create a mechanical test.
Although employers need not grant every religious accommodation request, Groff requires a more rigorous and individualised inquiry. Title VII requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business operations.
For decades, employers relied on language from the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which defined an undue hardship as one requiring more than a de minimis cost. But in 2023, the Supreme Court rejected that shorthand as an inadequate statement of the statutory standard. Instead, Groff established that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
This formulation matters because it requires context. A cost or operational burden cannot be deemed substantial in the abstract. The nature of the employer’s business, the requested accommodation and its practical effects all matter.
The court in Groff also made clear that identifying a problem with an employee’s preferred accommodation does not end the inquiry. For example, if an employee’s time off request for a religious holiday conflicts with the employer’s normal scheduling practices, the employer should consider whether another scheduling arrangement could accommodate the employee without imposing an undue hardship.
Co-worker impact is relevant, but co-worker objection is different.
Groff drew an important distinction between the operational impact of an accommodation on co-workers, and hostility toward the religious practice itself. The court explicitly stated that hardship attributable to employee animosity toward a particular religion, toward religion generally, or toward the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot constitute an undue hardship.
EEOC v. Hermes USA Inc. illustrates this distinction. In the June 30 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the agency alleged that a sales employee for a dealership group known as Gravity Autos was initially given Saturdays off to observe his Sabbath, but was later required to work on Saturdays despite his refusal, because the arrangement was unfair to other employees. However, under Groff, the relevant question is whether the accommodation imposed a substantial burden on the conduct of the employer’s business, not whether co-workers viewed the accommodation as unfair.
Accordingly, employers must distinguish between concrete effects on business operations — such as significant additional hours, staffing shortages, or interference with contractual or seniority rights — versus co-worker dissatisfaction with the accommodation itself. Under Title VII, those circumstances are not equivalent.
Accommodation is more than saying yes.
The Apple settlement also underscores the importance of the accommodation process. Under the consent decree, Apple must revise its religious observance policy, train managers and human resources personnel, and provide written explanations for any denied accommodation requests.
Employers should give equal attention to how approved accommodations are implemented in practice. An accommodation should not only address the employee’s religious needs, but also do so practically and respectfully.
Consider prayer space, for example. An employer needn’t create a dedicated prayer room, but directing an employee to a basement storage closet when an empty conference room or an unused office is available may undermine an otherwise reasonable accommodation.
Similar considerations apply to religious dress, grooming and dietary needs. Dress or grooming policies may warrant scrutiny if they do not serve a legitimate business or safety need and conflict with the requested accommodation. Other accommodations require little more than advance planning, such as accommodating religious dietary restrictions at employer-sponsored meals or events.
Policies still matter, but individual analysis matters more.
Recent enforcement activity underscores that a sound religious accommodation policy is only a starting point.
On Sept. 24, the EEOC sued a Las Vegas hotel and casino in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that the employer denied a cashier’s request to wear a religious headscarf and required her to provide a clergy letter because her practice did not align with an HR manager’s personal understanding of her religion. However, the employee in EEOC v. Circa Hospitality Group III LLC could not provide such a letter because she was not a member of a congregation.
Individualised analysis requires decision-makers to understand the employee’s religious conflict, consider reasonable accommodations and assess the actual operational effects. Employers should not rely on their own assumptions about what a religion requires or how it should be observed. Employers should use readily available, reliable resources to educate themselves about unfamiliar religious practices, rather than placing the entire burden on employees to explain their faith.
Consistency matters, but it does not require identical outcomes. For instance, two employees seeking the same day off may present different operational circumstances. However, an employer that routinely makes exceptions to a scheduling, dress or space use policy for secular reasons should be prepared to provide comparable flexibility for religious accommodations, absent a legitimate basis for treating the request differently.
Learn to ask better questions than “Do we have to?”
Rather than asking whether an employer must grant a particular request, make the analysis concrete by asking better questions. For example, which workplace requirement conflicts with the employee’s religious practice? What accommodation would resolve that conflict? What alternatives are available? What would each option cost or disrupt? If co-workers are affected, what is the operational impact, rather than simply their reaction? If an accommodation is granted, will it actually meet the employee’s religious need?
These questions arise in everyday workplace settings, from shift schedules and grooming policies to prayer space, catered meals and religious holidays. But employers are addressing them at a time when religious identity and expression are increasingly visible and contentious in public life, and allegations of religious intolerance and discrimination regularly dominate public discourse. Inevitably, these tensions enter the workplace through employees with different beliefs, experiences and perspectives.
Against that backdrop, and with the EEOC actively pursuing religious accommodation matters, employers should treat these requests as meaningful compliance issues, not routine personnel matters. A seemingly straightforward request can create significant legal exposure if it is handled without an individualised assessment or based on assumptions about an employee’s faith.
Thus, employers that understand the post-Groff standard, educate their decision-makers and focus on actual business burdens will be better positioned to make sound, defensible accommodation decisions.
