Religious accommodation in the workplace isn’t just a legal requirement—it’s a growing area of litigation risk. A recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit against Marriott underscores the stakes for employers nationwide.[1] Last month, the EEOC sued Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation and Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida for the alleged failure to accommodate an employee’s request not to work Saturdays so she could observe the Sabbath. This Florida case serves as a strong reminder to employers to know how to appropriately navigate requests for religious accommodation.
What Type of Accommodation is Required?
It is important that employers review every religious accommodation request on a case-by-case basis and assess the employer’s ability to offer a “reasonable” accommodation. “A reasonable accommodation eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices.” Israel v. Grand Peaks Property Mgmt., No. 0:23-cv-61131-LEIBOWITZ/STRAUSS, 2024 WL 4533604, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2024) (internal citation omitted). An employer has an “obligation to reasonably accommodate employees who, because of their specific beliefs and practices, refuse to work on particular days of the week.” Mathewson v. Fla. Game & Fresh Water Fish Com’n, 693 F. Supp. 1044, 1050 (M.D. Fla. 1988). Likewise, employees have a duty of “bilateral cooperation.” Id. “If an employer establishes that it offered a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s religious practice, it is entitled to judgment in its favor. The employer has no further obligation to offer an employee’s preferred accommodation … That is, an employer is not required to give the reasonable accommodation an employee requests. What matters is that a reasonable accommodation has been offered.” Scafidi v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2024). The reasonableness of an employer’s attempt at accommodation is generally a question of fact for the jury. Id. at 1244.
What is an Undue Hardship?
Employers are obligated to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Supreme Court has clarified “that showing ‘more than a de minimis cost,’ as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.” Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 468 (2023). Whether an accommodation would pose an undue hardship “takes into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of [an] employer.” Id. at 470–71 (internal citations omitted). “An employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Id. at 470. In sum, an undue hardship “is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” Scafidi v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2024). “If a requested accommodation poses an undue hardship, the employer must sua sponte consider other possible accommodations. Only after thorough consideration of other options may the employer deny the employee’s request for accommodation.” Hebrew v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 80 F. 4th 717, 722 (5th Cir. 2023).
What Aspects of Religious Practice are Protected?
“Title VII protects more than the observance of Sabbath or practices specifically mandated by an employee’s religion: [T]he very words of the statute (‘all aspects of religious observance and practice….’) leave little room for such a limited interpretation…. [T]o restrict the act to those practices which are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the religion, would involve the court in determining not only what are the tenets of a particular religion, … but would frequently require the courts to decide whether a particular practice is or is not required by the tenets of the religion….” Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993) (reversing judgment for employer and finding employee attending his wife’s conversion to Judaism was entitled to protection as an observance of his religion). Any such credibility determinations regarding the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs are to be made by the factfinder at trial. Scafidi v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Fla. 2024).
Religious accommodation in the workplace is a legal obligation that requires careful individualized attention from employers. The recent EEOC lawsuit against Marriott serves as a timely reminder that the failure to adequately assess and respond to religious accommodation requests may result in costly litigation. Employers should proactively train managers, ensure there is a clear procedure for requesting and responding to accommodation requests, document interactive processes, avoid assuming what is or is not mandated by a religion, and, when in doubt, consult employment counsel.
[1] EEOC v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00790-PGB-DCI.