Background

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so causes an undue hardship. In 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified in Groff v. DeJoy (143 S. Ct. 2279, 2023) that “showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’ … does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII” (see our previous alert). Instead, employers must demonstrate a “substantial” burden and take into account “all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.”

Lessons from the EEOC’s 2025 enforcement actions

The EEOC’s August 22 press release, “200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work,” provides valuable insight into how the EEOC will enforce the new Groff standard against employers:

• Rigorously evaluate whether a requested accommodation is an undue hardship. The EEOC recently sued a hotel for allegedly refusing employees’ request for an accommodation to observe the Sabbath, leading to her resignation. The EEOC filed a similar lawsuit against a staffing agency for allegedly not hiring a Muslim applicant because of his request for accommodation to attend Friday prayer. Additionally, the EEOC has filed two lawsuits against employers who denied their employees’ requests to wear skirts instead of pants for religious reasons.
• Carefully consider denying religious accommodation requests where denial will adversely affect the terms or conditions of employment. In a settlement with the EEOC, a healthcare system agreed to pay more than $1 million and offer reinstatement to employees it terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccination because of religious reasons. The EEOC found that Mercyhealth violated Title VII by denying accommodation requests and requiring unvaccinated employees to either accept termination or sign a form allowing a $60 monthly “vaccine incentive charge” to be deducted from their pay. As part of the settlement, Mercyhealth must revise its policies, train staff on religious accommodations, and report future decisions to the EEOC.
• Exercise caution when acting on conduct outside of work. The EEOC has sued a snow park for allegedly firing a Christian employee over faith-based social media posts that did not mention his workplace or coworkers. However, his supervisor asked the employee to refrain from making such posts. The employee was terminated just days after confirming with his supervisor that he could continue posting Bible verses. According to the EEOC, the termination violated Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination.

In addition to the EEOC’s renewed focus on religious discrimination claims, other federal agencies have continued their efforts to protect religious freedoms. Notably, in July 2025, the US Office of Personnel Management issued two memorandums regarding religious accommodations and religious expression in federal workplaces. Although these memorandums apply only to federal agencies for now, they may foreshadow the heightened expectations around religious accommodations for private employers.

The first memo, released July 16, requires agencies to take a “generous approach” to religious accommodations, such as offering flexible schedules, leave options, and telework. Telework is highlighted as a “low-cost solution” that should be denied only with “evidence of significant operational impact.” The memorandum reiterates that only “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer’s] particular business” constitute an undue hardship and not “minor inconveniences.”

The second memo, issued July 28, requires agencies to protect personal religious expression in the workplace. Employees must be allowed to express their faith privately “to the same extent” as nonreligious expression. Agencies may regulate speech based on time and place but not on content or viewpoint. Citing Groff v. DeJoy, the memorandum emphasizes that coworker discomfort with religious practices is not a factor when evaluating undue hardship.

Next steps

1. Review and update workplace policies. Employers should conduct a thorough review of their religious accommodation and harassment policies to ensure legal compliance and internal consistency. Employers that do not currently have a religious accommodation policy should consider incorporating one into their employee handbook.
2. Establish a formal religious accommodation process. Employers should implement a structured process for evaluating religious accommodation requests, including clear criteria for assessing what constitutes a “substantial increased cost” in the context of their specific operations. All requests and related decisions should be thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and consistency.
3. Provide targeted training for human resources personnel and managers. Human resources staff and managers should receive training on how to identify and appropriately respond to religious accommodation requests, including those involving COVID-19 vaccination policies, religious holidays, religious dress, and prayer practices.

If you have any questions about navigating religious accommodations in the workplace, please contact your McDermott Will & Schulte lawyer or one of the authors.