Labor & Employment Developments Blog

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is poised to elevate its focus on religious discrimination in the workplace and employers should be alert. With its newly restored quorum allowing Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to move forward with more aggressive enforcement, the agency is expected to pursue a broader litigation agenda emphasizing religious accommodation rights under Title VII. In 2025 alone, the EEOC filed 11 religious discrimination suits, the highest in nearly a decade. Lucas credited the agency’s “tremendous wins” in defending religious liberty and signaled that this momentum will continue.

What This Means for Employers

The EEOC’s direction marks a clear shift towards faith-based accommodation enforcement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023). Under Groff, employers must grant religious accommodations unless doing so would cause substantial increased costs or undue hardship. This standard sets a much higher bar than the previous “more than de minimis” standard.  Thus, employers can expect greater scrutiny over how they evaluate and document religious accommodation requests, especially those related to scheduling conflicts (such as Sabbath observance), dress and grooming (such as head coverings, beards, and religious attire), social media or expression (such as faith-based posts), and workplace prayer or religious activity.

Recent EEOC cases demonstrate that the agency is applying Groff aggressively:

• The agency sued Apple after it allegedly failed to accommodate a Jewish employee’s request not to work on the Sabbath.
• The Rock Snowpark faced litigation for terminating an employee whose faith-based social media posts were flagged as potentially discriminatory toward LGBTQ+ individuals.
• The agency found the Department of Veterans affairs liable for failing to accommodate a Muslim physician’s weekly prayer.
• The EEOC also secured a $21 million settlement with Columbia University to resolve antisemitism claims – its largest public settlement in nearly 20 years.

With the full board in place, the Commission has authority to vote on new lawsuits. These examples demonstrate the EEOC’s new priorities and its intent to apply Groff to the widest extent possible.

What Steps Should Employers Take?

Ultimately, it is an employer’s responsibility to demonstrate that an accommodation would impose an undue hardship.  Employers should re-evaluate accommodation procedures to ensure alignment with the Groff standard. This includes ensuring decision-makers can clearly demonstrate, with evidence, that granting a requested accommodation would cause substantial increased costs or operational hardship. Employers should also review and update equal employment opportunity and dress-code policies to include examples of reasonable accommodations. Supervisors, managers, and human resources staff should be adequately trained on how to handle accommodation requests involving prayer breaks, religious symbols, and/or scheduling adjustments.

The EEOC’s renewed focus on religious discrimination may occasionally intersect with the protections recognized under Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). Thus, employers should emphasize and enforce anti-harassment and non-discrimination standards consistently. Further, avoid “taking sides” in faith-based versus identity-based disputes. Instead, focus on behavioral expectations and adherence to workplace policies. Finally, employers should document everything.

The EEOC is expected to issue updated compliance guidance reflecting Groff. The EEOC’s current manual predates that ruling, but the Office of Personnel Management has issued two federal memoranda permitting prayer at work and limited proselytizing. These memoranda are potential precursors to private-sector guidance.

The EEOC’s new leadership is sending a clear message: religious accommodation enforcement is back in the spotlight. Employers should be proactive and strengthen compliance practices, train HR teams, and prepare for increased litigation risk in 2025 and beyond. Balancing religious liberty with workplace inclusion will require both legal guidance and cultural sensitivity. The KMK Labor and Employment team is prepared and available to assist as you take proactive measures to reduce liability.