In recent years, religion has played a growing role in civil rights enforcement. Cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (584 U.S. 617, 2018) examined whether a business owner could refuse to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs, even though they were willing to sell other pre-made items. More recently, Groff v. DeJoy (No. 22-174, June 29, 2023) raised the standard for how far employers must go to accommodate religious practices, aligning expectations more closely with those for ADA accommodations. Other cases have touched on issues such as public funding for religious schools and institutions, highlighting the expanding intersection of religion and civil rights law.
A major issue in recent years has been the rise in pro-Gaza activism on college campuses and the accompanying surge in antisemitism. Many protestors have reframed the events of October 7 to align with their views on Israel, often using charged slogans like “from the river to the sea” without fully considering the implications for the Israeli Jewish population. Symbols such as the Hamas-associated keffiyeh have been adopted as broad representations of the Palestinian people, overlooking both cultural and religious diversity. In some cases, Jewish students were blocked from attending classes at prominent universities. These incidents have been widely documented by the media, sparking public concern and criticism.
EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas is a member of the U.S. Department Justice's taskforce aimed at combating anti-Christian discrimination, and in March she issued a statement condemning "egregious and widespread antisemitism" that she said has "plagued" college campuses.
It appears that the EEOC’s plan is to raise the awareness level and enforcement of religious discrimination. EEOC Acting Chair Lucas has indicated that they want to prioritize combating religious and anti-American discrimination, scale back workplace protections for transgender and nonbinary workers, and scrutinize employers' diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. In addition, they aim to revise regulations and guidance, such as those under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), to reflect the original intent of the law, rather than the broader interpretation issued by the previous administration that pushed the limits of its scope.
Just recently, Acting Chair Lucas appointed Shannon Royce, former president of the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA), to serve as her chief of staff. Royce left CEA in December after heading the Christian group for nearly four years, and CEA is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the agency over Biden-era policies on gender identity and abortion protections.
Other issues connected to religious beliefs include the previous administration’s extension of protections under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) to include abortion and gender-affirming care, as well as broader expansions of LGBTQ rights. These developments were particularly visible in the ongoing debate over transgender participation in women’s sports, which gained national attention through high-profile events. On January 20, his inauguration day, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
Interestingly, religious discrimination charges declined in 2024, with only 3,640 filed – a drop of nearly 700 compared to 2023. The question now is whether that trend will reverse. Many expect it will.
Employers should be proactive in preparing for a shifting legal and cultural landscape by training staff on how to handle situations that could lead to religious discrimination claims. While some scenarios may seem extreme, they could include employees refusing to work alongside someone based on that person’s gender, race, or LGBTQ identity, citing religious beliefs. Proper training and clear policies are essential to navigate these complex situations effectively.
As the EEOC points out in their guidance about religious accommodations, the law applies to employees who have sincere religious, ethical, or moral beliefs. This includes employees who belong to traditional, organized religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or Sikhism, as well as people who have newer or less common religious beliefs and atheists. Consult with legal counsel to assess whether a belief qualifies as sincerely held, as failing to act, or acting incorrectly, can create legal risk. Avoid making assumptions about an employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or what accommodations may be appropriate.
As with the ADA, employers should engage in an interactive dialogue with employees when a religious accommodation is requested. Avoid blanket refusals or rigid policies that don’t allow for exceptions. Each request should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if an employee asks for a schedule change to attend religious services, talk through the request and evaluate whether it presents a hardship to the organization. Keep in mind that if a hardship is claimed, it may ultimately be challenged in court, so it's important to have a clear, well-documented process for assessing and determining hardship.
Source: Law360 5/8/25, Barnes & Thornburg 4/29/25