Listen to this post

Religious discrimination and accommodations have quietly become some of the EEOC’s enforcement priorities, and a string of recent lawsuits shows the agency is not shy about pursuing those claims. For employers, this is a good time to revisit how religious accommodation requests are being handled on the ground, not just on paper.

Background

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s religion. Additionally, since 1972, it has expressly required covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. For decades, employers operated under the understanding that “undue hardship” meant almost any cost beyond a trivial or “de minimis” one.

However, as we blogged about previously, the Supreme Court upended that framework in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. The Court held that “undue hardship” requires a showing of substantially increased costs in relation to the employer’s particular business — a considerably higher bar than the old de minimis standard. Importantly, Groff also made clear that an employer cannot rely on co-worker dissatisfaction alone to justify denying an accommodation. Instead, the inquiry must focus on whether the accommodation’s effects actually burden the business, and hardship rooted in hostility toward a religious practice or the very idea of accommodating it does not count as “undue” at all. Groff also emphasized that the employer must consider the full range of possible accommodations, not just whether the employee’s preferred option is workable.

In short, Groff raised the bar significantly, and employers that have not revisited their religious accommodation practices since 2023 are operating under an outdated standard.

The EEOC’s Recent Enforcement Activity

The EEOC has itself named religious freedom as one of the top priorities in its National Enforcement Plan, and employers should expect continued scrutiny not only of how religious accommodation requests are handled, but also of whether a belief qualifies for protection in the first place. The threshold for a “sincerely held religious belief” is intentionally broad, and employers should be cautious about second-guessing an employee’s stated belief or practice absent a genuine basis to question its sincerity.

The EEOC has reinforced its stated priority of religious freedom with a series of lawsuits and a high-profile settlement, several involving the observance of the Sabbath.

In one 2025 lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an automaker initially accommodated an employee’s Sabbath observance, later revoked that accommodation when it instituted mandatory Saturday work, and disciplined him for attendance violations tied to his religious observance rather than engaging with him on alternatives. The EEOC also alleged that the employer ultimately terminated him after he sought time off for Passover and filed a discrimination charge. The EEOC frames this as a textbook failure to accommodate compounded by retaliation. This lawsuit now involves multiple plaintiffs and is still ongoing in the Eastern District of Michigan.

In another lawsuit filed in June 2026, the EEOC alleged that a car dealership group initially approved an employee’s request for Saturdays off to observe his Sabbath, then reversed course because the arrangement seemed “unfair” to other employees, and fired him after he objected to the reversal as discriminatory. An EEOC regional attorney was blunt about the legal theory, stating that “concerns about the reaction of other employees to a requested accommodation will not necessarily constitute a substantial burden in the overall context of an employer’s business.” That theory lines up squarely with Groff’s holding that co-worker friction alone is not the test to justify denying an accommodation.

Additionally, in August 2026, the EEOC announced a $150,000 settlement with Apple Inc. The EEOC had filed suit alleging that Apple failed to accommodate a longtime employee’s Sabbath observance, where he needed to be off from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown for the Jewish Sabbath. The EEOC also alleged that Apple retaliated against the employee for complaining and terminated him. The settlement agreement requires the company to revise its religious observance policy, train managers and HR personnel, provide written explanations for accommodation denials, and report accommodation-related complaints to the EEOC for two years.

Takeaways

Although these are the EEOC’s allegations, which are not judicial findings, and employers facing claims have their own versions of events, the pattern across these matters tells employers where the agency is looking: approvals that get revoked, decisions driven by co-worker complaints rather than actual business impact, and accommodation processes that lack documentation or follow-through. Here are some considerations moving forward:

  • Apply the Groff “substantial cost” standard, not the old de minimis standard. If your accommodation decisions are still being made on the assumption that almost any cost justifies a denial, that approach is outdated and risky.
  • Co-worker grumbling is not the test. Focus the analysis on whether the accommodation actually creates a substantial burden on business operations (which could include a legitimate burden on other employees and resulting substantially increased costs), not on whether other employees are unhappy about it.
  • Don’t revoke an accommodation lightly. If you’ve already granted a religious accommodation, think carefully — and document your reasoning — before pulling it back. You can try an accommodation to see if it will work, but be sure to document the accommodation as temporary or note that it will be revisited at a certain time.
  • Document the interactive process. Written explanations for any denial, and a record of alternatives considered, will matter if the decision is ever challenged.
  • As always, consult with your employment lawyer.