Six months into the new Trump administration, it is clear that the EEOC is concentrating its efforts on religious discrimination in the workplace.
Since President Trump’s inauguration, 25% of the new lawsuits or enforcement actions announced by the EEOC involve claims against employers for religious discrimination. This is notable because only about 4% of all EEOC charges a year typically involve religious discrimination claims.[i]
In light of such enforcement activity, employers should be aware that federal law does not only prohibit discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment because of an employee’s religion, but it also requires employers to “reasonably accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”[ii] Failure to provide such accommodation is illegal religious discrimination.
Practically-speaking, when an employer’s policy or practice conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, the employer may be required to provide an accommodation to the employee that will allow the employee to work in a way that does not conflict with the employee’s religious belief.
Employers can follow a simple procedure to identify accommodations that will allow an employee to continue working without interfering with the employee’s religious beliefs.
First, once an employee notifies the employer that its policy or practice is conflicting with or interfering with the employee’s religious practice, the employer should determine what about the work policy or practice is objectionable to the employee and how the policy or practice conflicts with the employee’s religious belief. Typically, this involves a conversation with the employee.
Then the employer should consider potential accommodations that would allow the job duties to be performed, but not conflict with the employee’s religious belief. The employee may suggest their preferred accommodation, but the employer is allowed to consider all potential accommodations. The type of accommodations available depend upon the religious belief, the policy or practice involved, and the work duties of the employee.
A frequent issue is when religious days of rest, reflection, or worship conflict with an employee’s work schedule. Potential accommodations include changing the employee’s schedule or shift swapping. For some employees, dress and grooming codes conflict with religious beliefs and potential accommodations may be allowing beards or head or face covers. Accommodations that may easily be implemented in one work setting may not be feasible in another, so employers are allowed to consider and implement many varying accommodations depending on the job duties, location, and religious objection involved.
Religious discrimination claims arise when employers do not provide an accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious belief or provide an accommodation that is more retaliatory than helping with performing duties.
Employers may deny requests for accommodation, but only when all potential accommodations would cause an undue hardship on the employer. The hardship has to be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” In other words, the accommodations would have to “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business”, taking into account “the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” [iii] This is a fact-specific inquiry that should be handled with care, weighing the employee’s religious belief against the costs and burdens involved in providing the potential accommodations. The decision of whether to grant an accommodation must be based upon facts and not preference, stereotype, or animosity toward the religion.
As with any employee request for accommodation, an employer’s best defense to a failure to accommodate claim is documenting the process, including communications with the employee about the request, accommodations considered, and the legitimate business reasons supporting the decisions made.
No short article can cover all of the nuances of responding to an employee request for accommodation. Kerr Russell’s labor and employment attorneys at have extensive experience in advising employers of all sizes in responding to employee requests for accommodation and discrimination claims.
[i] Compare EEOC news releases from 1/21/25 to 7/7/25, https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom, with EEOC Enforcement Data, Charge Statistics from FY 2015 to 2024, https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0.
[ii] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(j), 2000e-2(a)
[iii] Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023)
