Written by Lillie Stivers
Recent decisions from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have put federal employers on notice: religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be taken seriously. These rulings not only reinforce the legal weight of religious rights in the workplace but also clarify what employers must do to avoid costly mistakes.
What’s Changed?
The EEOC has handed down two major decisions that reshape how religious accommodation requests should be handled—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. That ruling raised the bar for what counts as an “undue hardship,” and now the EEOC is applying it retroactively to all open cases.
One of the most consequential shifts is the Supreme Court’s rejection of the long-standing de minimis standard. Under Groff, employers must now demonstrate that a requested accommodation would impose a substantial burden on the conduct of their business. This is a far more demanding threshold and aligns Title VII’s undue hardship standard with the one used under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Two Cases That Illustrate the New Expectations
- Department of Veterans Affairs: Compressed Schedule Denial
The EEOC found that the Department of Veterans Affairs violated Title VII by rejecting a reasonable accommodation request from an employee who sought Friday afternoons off for religious observance. The employee proposed a compressed schedule—working longer hours Monday through Thursday—to make up the time.
Instead, the Department offered alternatives that imposed greater burdens, such as working Saturdays or switching to part-time status. The EEOC ruled these options unreasonable and held that the Department failed to show that the employee’s proposed schedule would cause undue hardship.
- Federal Reserve Board: Termination Over Vaccine Refusal
In another decision, the EEOC ruled against the Federal Reserve Board for terminating an employee who declined the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious beliefs. The Board neither provided evidence of undue hardship nor engaged in the required interactive process to explore alternatives.
The EEOC noted that the absence of documentation suggested the Board did not meaningfully consider the accommodation request. This case underscores the importance of not only evaluating requests in good faith but also maintaining a clear record of the decision-making process.
What Employers Must Do Now
These decisions are more than isolated rulings, they are a wake-up call for employers across all sectors. To remain compliant and avoid costly litigation, employers should:
- Grant Accommodations When Reasonable: Denials must be backed by substantial evidence of undue hardship, not vague assertions or assumptions.
- Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all accommodation requests, communications, and the rationale behind decisions.
- Engage in the Interactive Process: Collaborate with employees to explore feasible accommodations before making any final determinations.
The EEOC’s recent actions make it clear: employers who fail to treat religious accommodations with the seriousness they deserve risk violating federal law. If your organization hasn’t updated its policies since Groff v. DeJoy, now is the time.