EEOC Priorities…

We have previously discussed the EEOC’s rescission of guidance related to sexual harassment and affirmative action, which have materially changed the EEOC’s approach to enforcing nondiscrimination laws.  These material changes have made it easier for employers to withstand employee challenges regarding workplace behavior and employer decisions that allege unlawful discrimination.  In addition to rescinding guidance, the EEOC has also been active in restating its priorities in the current climate.  A recent example of this is the EEOC’s stated commitment to enforcing the requirement that employers honor an employee’s religious accommodation requests. In fact, on June 4, 2026, the EEOC issued a National Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025-2029 that included a stated commitment to address an employer’s obligation to reasonably accommodate religious practices. 

As part of this approach to religious accommodation, the EEOC is relying on a new standard to determine whether a religious accommodation creates an undue hardship under the law.  This new standard was set forth in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. ____ (2023).  That case involved an Evangelical Christian who worked for the United States Postal Service and who challenged the requirement that he work on Sundays to make deliveries for Amazon.  When the Sunday work requirement was first introduced, Groff transferred to a rural delivery route that did not make Amazon deliveries to avoid having to work on Sunday.  Later, as the Post Office expanded its contract with Amazon, Groff’s rural route also required that mail carriers work on rotating Sundays to make Amazon deliveries.  Groff refused to work on Sundays, claiming that was his Sabbath and it was against his religious beliefs to work on that day.  Ultimately, Groff was subjected to progressive discipline for his refusal to work on Sundays and he resigned.  Groff then sued the United States Postal Service. 

The Postal Service filed a motion for summary judgment, referencing Supreme Court precedent that held that, if an employer can show more than a “de minimis cost” to provide a religious accommodation, the employer has met its burden of establishing an undue hardship and the requested accommodation is not required by law.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and Groff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.  In overturning the grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court held that Title VII requires an employer to show that the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in the conduct of its business.  This decision was a departure from earlier court holdings regarding religious discrimination. 

Since the Groff decision, the EEOC has filed numerous lawsuits against companies for religious discrimination.  These cases challenge employers in cases involving claims of religious discrimination primarily on the basis of the failure to make scheduling accommodations for religious observation and for requiring employees to be vaccinated. 

This change in the law requires employers to be more accommodating when employees request religious accommodations.  While, in the past, employers were able to reject an employee’s request for religious accommodation due to its negative impact on the workplace or the employer’s business, employers must now show that a requested accommodation presents a substantial burden in the conduct of the business.  Recent EEOC activity demonstrates that the agency finds this standard to be much harder for employers to meet; thus, leaving employers more vulnerable to religious discrimination cases.