The Legal Boundaries of Faith at Work: When Does Prayer Become an Undue Hardship?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, July 23, 2025

A few days ago OPM issued a new memo, Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes (July 16, 2025), which highlighted law that’s been in place for decades but bears repeating:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment because of an individual’s religion … The statute requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observances, practices, and beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1.

A reasonable accommodation for religion is an adjustment to the work environment (including things like work schedule, work location, or dress code) that will permit the employee to comply with his sincerely held religious beliefs or practices. See Ian S. v. Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160622 (Apr. 27, 2018); Complainant v. DOJ, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132112 (Apr. 17, 2015).

OPM’s new memo discusses types of accommodations agencies may need to provide, including telework, remote work and flexible work schedules – and it explicitly identifies the requirement to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs require them to participate in prayer.

I have to wonder if the folks who drafted the memo had recently been reading Vernie M. v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004103 (2022). This case dealt with an employee who requested religious accommodation in the form of an empty room where she could conduct her prayers. Her supervisor denied her request because the agency had a policy that “religion and politics were not allowed to be discussed on the workroom floor.” Id. at 4.

While this case involved a number of other claims, on the religious failure to accommodate claim EEOC held that the complainant stated a prima facie case because she “has a bona fide religious belief, Christianity; the Agency was aware of her belief and desire to utilize an empty room for prayer; and the Agency enforced its requirement that employees not discuss religion in the workplace.” Id. at 6. Stating a prima facie case, however, doesn’t mean there will be a finding of discrimination; the burden then shifts to the agency to show that it either provided the accommodation, or that providing accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

EEOC continued:

We understand the Agency’s desire to keep the workplace free from conflicts that may arise out of sensitive topics such as religion and politics; however, the Agency presented no argument that Complainant’s use of the empty room for prayer posed an undue hardship. Likewise, the Agency provided no alternative accommodation nor discussed the matter with Complainant in order to determine if an alternative accommodation was available. Therefore, we find that the Agency violated Title VII when Complainant’s request for a religious accommodation was denied.

Id.

We’ve seen many cases, new and old, where the assertion of a policy that conflicted with a religious practice was NOT enough to prove undue hardship. With the renewed focus on religious accommodation in the workplace, now is a critical time to review the law. hopkins@feltg.com

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.