Regulators and courts in both the U.S. and UK have been seeking to navigate the complex balance between employees’ rights to religious expression and employers’ interests. In particular, recent developments—namely, two U.S. federal workplace memos from July 2025 and the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in Higgs v. Farmor’s School—highlight their differing approaches and offer key takeaways for employers.
The U.S.: strong protections for religious expression
The U.S. has a tradition of robust religious freedom protections. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memo of July 28, 2025, which applies to government agencies, confirms that its employees may express religious beliefs at work—such as displaying symbols, joining prayer groups, or having voluntary religious conversations—unless this causes “undue hardship” to business operations or others’ rights. This builds on an earlier OPM memo and aligns with executive orders protecting religious liberty in government.
These principles are rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers employers in both public and private sectors. Employers must not discriminate based on religion and must reasonably accommodate religious practices unless doing so would impose “undue hardship”—a standard clarified by the Supreme Court as more than a minimal cost or burden, but still relatively low. Employers must consider accommodations unless they interfere with business operations or others’ rights and must justify any refusal without favouring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.
The trend looks set to continue as we saw the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently announce that Mercyhealth, a healthcare system operating in hospitals and clinics in Illinois and Wisconsin, paid more than USD1 million in monetary relief to a class of employees and offered to reinstate employees that it terminated for refusing to comply with the organisation’s COVID-19 vaccine policies, following the conclusion of an investigation by the EEOC.
The UK: a nuanced balancing act
The UK’s Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination based on religion or belief, but the right to manifest those beliefs is not absolute. Employers may restrict religious expression if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as protecting others’ rights or upholding organisational values. Courts require a careful balancing exercise, weighing the impact on the employee against potential harm to the business or stakeholders.
This was tested in Higgs v. Farmor’s School (2025), where a Christian staff member was dismissed after posting views on sex education and gender on her personal Facebook page—posts the school considered homophobic and reputationally damaging. The Court of Appeal found her dismissal discriminatory, ruling that it was not a proportionate response and that there was no evidence of actual reputational harm. The Court confirmed that protection for religious expression is not lost simply because views may be seen as shocking or offensive. The Higgs ruling highlights the importance of context, especially in sensitive environments like schools, and requires employers to ensure that any restriction or disciplinary action is a proportionate and carefully justified response, balancing the employee’s right to express their beliefs against any potential harm to the business, its reputation, and/or the rights of others.
Lessons for employers
This area remains fertile ground for litigation in both the U.S. and UK and is an area potentially fuelled by geopolitics and increased polarisation of opinions on topics such as the gender-critical debate and the Israel-Gaza conflict.
- Consequently, employers in the UK and U.S. should regularly review and refine their approach to religious expression at work in line with evolving case law and guidance.
- U.S. employers should have clear, consistent policies and should be prepared to accommodate religious practices unless there is a genuine business reason not to.
- UK employers should focus on proportionality and context—restrictions must be justified and carefully balanced against individual rights.
- In the UK, we have seen employers considering blanket policies requiring employees to refrain from discussing religious topics in the workplace, bearing in mind the issues and legal risks that can arise from such discussions.
- Such an approach would be much more difficult (if not impossible) to sustain in the U.S., where religious expression is a protected right in the workplace.
- Under both legal systems, managers should be trained to handle requests for religious accommodation thoughtfully and transparently, and all decisions—especially those involving discipline or dismissal—should be supported by clear evidence, careful reasoning, and thorough documentation.
- However, employers should exercise caution before disciplining or dismissing staff for religious expression or conduct linked to religious beliefs, as unjustified action can expose them to discrimination claims (which are uncapped in the UK).
- This issue is yet another demonstration of the difficulty global employers face when working across multiple geographies to align or adapt workforce policies for local laws and practices. Once again, we see that a “one size fits all” approach (even between the two jurisdictions compared here) can be difficult or at least introduce an additional layer of legal risk that needs to be considered carefully and regularly reviewed.
[View source.]
