Is a Compressed Schedule – to Permit Attendance at Mosque Prayer Services – an Undue Hardship?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, August 27, 2025

In recent weeks the Trump administration has put an emphasis on Federal employee rights to express religious beliefs in the workplace, and has also highlighted the requirement that agencies reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of employees unless doing so would cause the agency an undue hardship. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). And while a recent OPM memo only gives examples specifically related to Christianity and Judaism, the law identifies religion much more broadly and in addition to major world religions includes less-common belief systems as well. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12-I, A-1.

A recent EEO decision considered a Muslim employee’s claim that her agency unlawfully failed to accommodate her based on religion. Augustine B. v. VA, EEOC Appeal No. 2023004016 (Aug. 4, 2025). The complainant, a VA physician, requested that her schedule be adjusted to allow her to attend Friday afternoon prayer services at her mosque, and she offered to work longer days Monday through Thursday plus Friday mornings to ensure she completed 40 hours of work per week.

The agency ultimately granted her request for Friday afternoons off, but rather than agree to her proposed compressed schedule it provided two alternative options: the complainant “had to either start working six days a week or transfer to a part time position with significantly fewer hours.” Id. at 1. The complaint accepted the part time schedule, although “begrudgingly.” Id.

The Commission considered the reasonableness of the complainant’s request and compared it to the agency’s offered alternatives:

  • Regarding the six-day work schedule option, it found “no justification … to rationalize depriving Complainant of the customary benefit of two full days off. Nor does the Agency explain why it even made sense to go through the trouble of having Complainant work on Saturday rather than just letting her put in a [sic] extra hours on weekdays.” at 5.
  • On the part-time schedule option, it held that this offer was not reasonably comparable to the full-time job the complainant was originally hired for, as it resulted in a 40% reduction in hours and pay. at 5-6.

While the agency argued that providing the requested accommodation would be an undue hardship, the EEOC disagreed, finding that the requested accommodation “squarely eliminates the scheduling conflict with Complainant’s prayer service without unduly encumbering her working conditions or her religious practice.” Id. at 6. The EEOC also did not agree with the agency’s speculation that providing a compressed schedule would compromise patient care and burden other physicians. As (the new case writer at) OFO put it:

We are not persuaded that mere disgruntlement in the ranks over Complainant’s accommodation suffices to establish an undue hardship. To hold otherwise would mean that an employee’s entitlement to religious accommodation would often hinge on the magnanimity of her coworkers. An employee with the misfortune of having stingy colleagues would almost never receive accommodation.

Id. at 8.

The Commission held that a partially compressed work schedule would have been reasonable and would not have imposed an undue hardship, so the agency was liable for failure to accommodate. Id. 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.