On July 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued a memorandum to all heads and acting heads of federal government departments and agencies entitled “Protection Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.” The memo provides guidance regarding the protection and enforcement of each federal employee’s “right to engage in religious expression in the Federal workplace” and states that “Agencies should allow personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible unless such expression would impose an undue hardship on business operations.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment due to an individual’s protected status, including religion. Title VII further requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious practices and beliefs in the workplace so long as doing so would not cause an undue hardship on the employer’s business and operations.
EEOC guidance makes it clear that religious discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee unfavorably in the terms and conditions of employment – such as hiring, firing, compensation, promotions, and benefits – because of his or her religious beliefs. Harassing a person because of his or her religion is likewise unlawful. The law also requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023) clarified that employers must show “more than a de minimis cost” to establish an undue hardship under Title VII; rather, “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] 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.” In addition, an employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
Permissible religious expression in the workplace
According to the memo, federal employees must now:
- “be allowed to engage in private religious expression in work areas to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression. Agencies may, however, reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of all employee speech, provided such regulations do not discriminate based on content or viewpoint (including religious viewpoints).”
- “be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature, including but not limited to bibles, artwork, jewelry, posters displaying religious messages, and other indicia of religion (such as crosses, crucifixes and mezuzahs) on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces.”
- be allowed to “engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities.”
The memo makes clear that supervisors have the same rights to engage in such religious conversations as non-supervisory employees, even though they hold higher responsibility in the workplace and oversee subordinate employees. The memo notes that such conversations may not be the basis for workplace discipline, but provides no further detail fleshing out the power dynamic between supervisors and subordinates and the possibility of retaliation claims.
The memo further provides specific examples of permissible religious expression in the federal workplace.
- “An employee may keep a Bible on her desk and may read it during breaks.”
- “An employee who requests his supervisor prohibit his coworkers from gathering in an empty conference room for prayer should politely be told his coworkers’ conduct will be allowed to continue as it is permissible.”
- “An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.”
- “A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer.”
Possible impact on private employers?
The memo is applicable to federal agencies and federal employees, but what does it mean for private employers?
The Trump administration’s efforts to increase religious expression in the federal workplace could very well signal changes in the private sector as well. It would not be surprising for the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to adopt guidance in line with the memo, which would apply to private employers. Similarly, the EEOC may view protecting religious expression as an enforcement priority in investigations.
Where individuals may have previously kept religious discussions private and out of the workplace, they may now feel freer to have those discussions and expressions in private workplaces – even engaging in the proselytizing of co-workers. The memo seems to provide protections to those who want to talk about religion in the workplace and obscures what protections the person who wants to leave religion out of the workplace may have. By expanding the types of religious discussions and expressions that may take place at work, workplace tensions may increase, thereby placing a greater burden on employers trying to navigate disputes in compliance with Title VII.
For example, Christian Employee wants to invite Atheist Employee to Bible study, but Atheist Employee does not want to attend, nor does she want any further discussion on the topic. Does Christian Employee have greater Title VII protections in religious expression than Atheist Employee, who feels offended and harassed based on her religious beliefs? The employer will likely have to investigate those complaints and make decisions based on very fact-specific information.
In addition, existing EEOC guidance makes it clear that Title VII broadly applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, and Judaism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. What happens when there is a clash in the workplace between employees from differing religious backgrounds – Satanism and Christianity, or Islam and Judaism, for example?
Tough questions remain
One thing is clear: employees have a right to bring their religious beliefs and expression into the workplace. What is not clear for employers is how far that right extends, how to navigate difficult issues when there is a clash of beliefs, or how to balance competing rights for employees that may feel harassed by religious expression. Employers should work carefully with counsel as they encounter issues regarding religious expression in the workplace and these changing standards.
