EEOC rulings stress stricter religious accommodations

SUMMARY

• EEOC‘s Office of Federal Operations resolved two federal sector appeals alleging failures to accommodate religious beliefs.
• One case settled after an applicant was denied employment due to religious grooming and dress, with monetary and corrective relief.
• Another case found Sabbath scheduling denial violated Title VII; agency failed to consider alternatives, retaliated for asserting rights.
• Groff v. DeJoy raises the bar; employers must show a substantial burden to deny religious accommodations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently resolved two significant federal sector cases involving claims of religious discrimination.

While the cases came from federal workplaces, they offer useful guidance for private and public employers alike.

Both matters involved employees who said their employers failed to reasonably accommodate their religious beliefs. The cases were on appeal before the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations, which handles federal employee discrimination complaints, but the legal principles apply broadly under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Religious dress and grooming

In the first case, an employee claimed that a federal agency failed to accommodate his religious grooming practices.

The individual was initially denied a job offer due to his appearance, which was a result of religious observance.

The matter was resolved through a settlement that provided monetary damages and other corrective relief.

For employers, the takeaway is that grooming and dress policies must allow reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs. Employers may only deny such accommodations if they can demonstrate an undue hardship, a standard that courts apply strictly.

Scheduling for sabbath observance

The second case involved an employee who requested a religious accommodation not to work during her Sabbath.

She alleged that the agency failed to make reasonable scheduling changes and retaliated against her for asserting her rights.

The EEOC found that the agency violated Title VII by denying the accommodation and by failing to explore available alternatives. The case was settled with compensatory damages and remedial action.

Impact for private employers

While these two matters were federal employment cases, private employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs and practices under Title VII.

Following last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the standard for denying a religious accommodation became more demanding. Employers now must show that the burden of granting the request would be “substantial” and not just minimal.

Here are three lessons for employers:

Review your accommodation policies and ensure HR teams are trained to recognize religious accommodation requests.

Engage in a genuine interactive process. Explore reasonable options rather than outright denying requests.

Document decisions carefully to demonstrate that any denial is based on legitimate, substantial hardship.

EXTERNAL LINKS

• EEOC: Religious discrimination
• Supreme Court: Groff v. DeJoy (2023)
• EEOC newsroom: Federal sector appellate decisions