The EEOC Signals Continued Increased Scrutiny of Religious Accommodation in the Workplace
Particularly since pandemic-era vaccination requirements, American employers have faced increasing enforcement actions and litigation regarding religious accommodation requests. Additionally, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy heightened the burden on an employer to show that an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship—clarifying that the employer must show a “substantial” detriment to its overall business. Now, the Trump Administration, through the EEOC’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, has emphasized its priority of “restoring evenhanded enforcement of Title VII—ensuring that workers are not forced to choose between their paycheck and their faith.” In a News Release issued August 22, 2025, the EEOC touted its recent enforcement actions to uphold “religious liberty protections for workers,” including:
- Mercyhealth agreed to pay more than $1 million for denying religious accommodations to employees for its COVID-19 vaccine mandate and only allowing unvaccinated employees to continue working if they signed a form allowing Mercyhealth to deduct $60 from their wages, which Mercyhealth called its “vaccine incentive charge.” Similarly, the EEOC settled with two Las Vegas Strip resort & casinos for denying its employees’ religious accommodations for its COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
- The EEOC filed a lawsuit against The Rock Snowpark after it fired an employee for posting Bible verses on his social media page, which were made outside of work that did not reference or impact anyone in the workplace.
- The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Marriott corporate umbrella for failing to accommodate an employee’s request to observe the Sabbath in accordance with her religion.
- The EEOC recently settled with The Teeth Doctors, a North Carolina dental clinic, for firing an employee over her request to wear a scrub skirt for religious reasons.
- The EEOC settled with Columbia University for a hefty $21 million for the university’s pattern or practice of harassment of its Jewish employees following the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.
Takeaways for Employers
With the EEOC’s increased focus on preventing and remedying religious discrimination at work, employers need to carefully consider their policies and practices for responding to an employee’s sincere request for religious accommodation and/or expression. An employer must not discriminate or take adverse action against an employee because of their religious beliefs or practices; and employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice unless doing so imposes an undue hardship—a fact-specific inquiry. When evaluating hardship, an employer must consider, among other things, the cost of the accommodation, any compromises of workplace safety, and the effect of the accommodation on other employees. As demonstrated by the COVID-19 vaccine mandate lawsuits, an overemphasis or incorrect analysis of these factors can result in costly legal consequences. Employers should consult with their legal counsel concerning compliance with evolving standards.
If you have any questions, please contact a member of the Brooks Pierce Labor & Employment Team.