DOJ Opinion Says EEOC's Title VII Rules on Disparate Impact Are Unconstitutional

Yesterday, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a 25-page opinion (full text) concluding that the EEOC's regulations and guidance documents on disparate-impact liability under Title VII are unconstitutional. The OLC's opinion focuses on disparate impact in racial discrimination cases. However, the same rules apply to religious discrimination cases, even though those rules are seldom used in that context. The OLC Opinion says in part:

... Rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to smoke out intentional discrimination—imposing liability only when disproportionate adverse effects give rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination—EEOC’s historic interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent. Because EEOC’s historic approach divorces liability from circumstances giving rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred, it functions as a qualified racial-proportionality mandate and spurs employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking to avoid liability. That approach is unlawful and unconstitutional.

Three corrections to that approach are necessary.... First, the business-necessity defense is not a high bar; it requires employers to demonstrate only that the challenged practice is rational, convenient, or helpful for serving a valid business purpose. Employment practices are presumptively job related, and only irrational or arbitrary practices with no plausible job-relatedness can create disparate-impact liability. Second, plaintiffs must satisfy a robust causality requirement by demonstrating ... that the challenged employment practice itself (not external factors or other employer practices) caused the alleged disparate impact. Third, plaintiffs must establish with particular evidence that there is an available alternative practice that causes less disparate impact and would be equally effective for serving the employer’s valid business purpose....

Workplace requirements and selection procedures—such as background checks, aptitude tests, knowledge-based tests, SAT scores, high-school graduation requirements, or blind auditions—are presumptively job-related. Only practices that establish truly “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers”—i.e., those that have no plausible job-relatedness—can create liability....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the issuance of the OLC Opinion.

Adversarial Questioning of Employees Claiming Religious Accommodations Violated Title VII

In Matilde M. v. Burgum, (EEOC Federal Sector, May 15, 2026), the EEOC in an appeal from a finding by the Bureau of Indian Education, held that the Bureau had engaged in religious discrimination when it denied religious accommodations to three employees who refused on religious grounds to comply with the agency's Covid vaccine mandate. The employees cited their religious belief in the sacredness of human life and their religious practice of rejecting substances developed using human fetal cells obtained through abortion.

The EEOC said in part:

After careful review, we conclude that testing and masking were a possible alternative reasonable accommodation for Complainants. And we find the Agency has not met its burden to establish by preponderant evidence that testing and masking would have imposed an undue hardship on its operations. Moreover, we find the Agency acted discriminatorily when it subjected Complainants to an unduly adversarial accommodation process....

At the barest minimum, a process to handle religious accommodation requests needs to provide employees with a non-adversarial forum.... The process the Agency imposed was adversarial to the point that we can persuasively infer an underlying discriminatory, even disdainful, motive. The Agency singled out employees with religious objections related to the use of human fetal cells for particularly disfavored treatment. They were summoned to an inquisitorial panel to be quizzed and lectured on their medical history and knowledge of other medicines derived from human fetal cells. We are persuaded that the crucible of invasive gotcha-style questioning was a thinly veiled, and discriminatory, attempt to expose supposed hypocrisy and convince Complainants to recant their objections.... 

This is not to say that an employee’s asserted religious views evade all scrutiny. Measured, non-adversarial inquiry may be appropriate to help the employer fully understand the contours and sincerity of the employee’s religious beliefs and practices. But ...the Agency’s inquiry as an employer is ... limited to whether the purported religious conflict “reflects an honest conviction.”... [T]he “veracity [i.e., the correctness] of [the employee’s] religious belief” does not meaningfully bear on the honesty of the conviction....

The EEOC issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Enforces EEOC Subpoena for Information on Jewish Employees at Penn

In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, (ED PA, March 31, 2026), a Pennsylvania federal district court enforced the EEOC's subpoena for information about Jewish employees of the University of Pennsylvania. The EEOC is investigating a charge that Penn engaged in harassment of Jewish employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court said in part:

... [U]unlike investigations into ... sexual harassment or racial discrimination, the subpoena sought information pertaining to people’s faith, making its requests more intrusive and calling for greater sensitivity, something the EEOC now acknowledges. 

One of those requests in particular sought ... lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups.  Though ineptly worded, the request had an understandable purpose—to obtain in a narrowly tailored way ... information on individuals in Penn’s Jewish community who could have experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the workplace....

Penn and other groups and associations the Court permitted to intervene significantly raised the dispute’s temperature by impliedly and even expressly comparing the EEOC’s efforts to protect Jewish employees from antisemitism to the Holocaust and the Nazis’ compilation of “lists of Jews.”  Such allegations are unfortunate and inappropriate.  They also obfuscate the Court’s limited role and the discrete legal issues before it.  And the EEOC no longer seeks any employee’s specific affiliation with a particular Jewish-related organization on campus.... 

Politico reports on the decision.

EEOC Says Federal Agencies May Base Restroom Access on Biological Sex

 In a February 26 press release, the EEOC announced:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 today to approve a federal sector appellate decision adjudicating an appeal regarding access to intimate spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, in federal workplaces under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

 “Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “When it comes to bathrooms, male and female employees are not similarly situated. Biology is not bigotry.”

When adjudicating appeals of alleged employment discrimination in the federal sector, the EEOC applies longstanding precedent, including relevant Supreme Court decisions, to the facts of the case. In this case, however, such precedent does not exist, as federal courts have not determined whether Title VII requires employers to permit trans-identifying employees to access bathrooms and other intimate spaces otherwise reserved for the opposite sex. In the absence of authoritative court precedent, the EEOC used the traditional tools of statutory construction, turning first to the ordinary meaning of the statute’s text and ensuring that the decision is further anchored by the Supreme Court’s precedents in comparable areas of law.

In applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the EEOC found that Title VII permits a federal agency employer to maintain single-sex bathrooms and similar intimate spaces; and permits a federal agency employer to exclude employees, including trans-identifying employees, from opposite sex-facilities. Today’s opinion overturns a prior EEOC federal sector appellate decision (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (2015)) with respect to the portion of that opinion addressing a federal employee’s access to an opposite-sex bathroom based on “gender identity.”

As with all of the EEOC’s appellate decisions adjudicating federal agency employment discrimination complaints, this decision applies only to federal agencies subject to the EEOC’s administrative complaint process for federal employees. It does not apply to private sector employers, nor does it bind any federal court.

The Agency's action approved a 23-page Federal Sector Appellate Decision, Selina S. v. Driscoll, (EEOC Federal Sector Appeal, Feb. 26, 2026), a case brought by a civilian employee of the Army.

Andrea Lucas Named Chair of EEOC

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Andrea R. Lucas has been designated by President Trump as Chair of the Commission. She has been a member of the Commission since 2020. She was confirmed by the Senate in July 2025 to serve a second term on the Commission. She has been serving as Acting Chair of the EEOC since January of this year. (Background.) According to Lucas' biography on the EEOC website:

She prioritizes evenhanded enforcement of civil rights laws for all Americans, including by rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment; and remedying other areas that have been historically under-enforced by the agency.

On Oct. 7, the U.S. Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC member, restoring sufficient members for a quorum. The EEOC lost its quorum when President Trump removed two Biden-appointed Commissioners in January. (Background.)

The EEOC administers federal laws barring employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of religion.

Justice Department Issues Opinion to EEOC On Impact of Recent Developments for Federal Employees

Earlier this month, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an advisory opinion Religious Liberty Protections for Federal Employees in Light of Recent Legal Developments, 49 Op. O.L.C. __ (Sept. 18, 2025). The opinion was requested by the Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who wanted to know the extent to which 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace and a 2017 Memorandum Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty remain operative. OLC responded that recent developments require two exceptions to continuing to enforce those prior directives:

First ... the Supreme Court held in Groff that an employer experiences “undue hardship” only where the burden posed by an accommodation would be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”... Thus, under Title VII, an agency cannot deny a religious accommodation if the burden imposed on the agency by the accommodation in the context of the agency’s work is insubstantial. Agencies should therefore disregard references in the 1997 Guidelines to the “de minimis” standard as inconsistent with their statutory obligations....

Second, the 1997 Guidelines provide that, although agencies generally may not “restrict personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace,” agencies must restrict such expression where it “creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion.”... Again, that restriction reflected Supreme Court precedent that has since been abrogated....

The 1997 Guidelines’ “official endorsement” test thus creates a special restriction on religious expression without a constitutionally valid justification.  

... [O]ur conclusion that the “appearance of official endorsement” test can no longer be enforced does not mean that all religious expression in the workplace must be permitted. Nor does it mean that the Constitution imposes no limits on religious conduct or expression by government employees. The Supreme Court has never cast doubt on the principle that government employers can prohibit disruptive or coercive behavior by their employees regardless of the religious nature of that conduct.

The OLC Opinion also went on to provide that telework as a form of religious accommodation for federal employees may still be used despite President Trump's directive to federal employees to return to in-person work.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

EEOC Highlights Its Actions to Protect Employees' Religious Freedom

The EEOC yesterday issued a lengthy press release titled 200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work. The Release says in part:

To date, the EEOC has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by these [vaccine] mandates—most recently, this week’s $1 million settlement with Mercyhealth. During the Biden Administration, almost all of the agency’s important work enforcing Title VII in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates happened both silently and too slowly. No longer. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC is taking bold and aggressive steps to remedy the widespread civil rights harms during the pandemic—the first public fruits of which are reflected below....

It also highlighted initiatives involving religious accommodation for employees, antisemitism in colleges, protection of federal employees' religious rights and the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

Columbia and UCLA Settle Antisemitism Charges

Last week (July 23), Columbia University announced that it had reached a settlement with the federal government to restore its research funding and federal grants that had been frozen. The University entered a Resolution Agreement (full text) with the Justice Department, Department of Education and HHS. It also entered a separate EEOC Agreement settling Title VII discrimination claims charging antisemitism suffered by Columbia employees.  According to the EEOC's press release:

Columbia University will pay $21 million for a class settlement fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Columbia employees occurring on its campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks.... This settlement resolves EEOC charges, including a Commissioner’s Charge brought ... on behalf of a class of all Jewish employees, alleging that since at least Oct. 7, 2023, Columbia engaged in a pattern or practice of harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or race, in violation of Title VII....

The full text of the EEOC Agreement does not appear to have been publicly released even though it is incorporated by reference in the Resolution Agreement. 

The broader Resolution Agreement provides in part that Columbia will appoint new faculty members with joint appointments in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and economics, political science or public affairs. It also calls for the appointment of a new administrator who will act as a liaison on antisemitism issues.

A statement by Columbia's president says in part:

The agreement builds on Columbia’s broader commitment to combating antisemitism, reflected most recently in a set of additional institutional actions announced on July 15, 2025, including the incorporation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism into the work of the University’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), the appointment of Title VI and Title VII coordinators in OIE, and the expansion of university-wide education and training initiatives.

On July 29, the University of California announced that it had reached a settlement in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California. In the case, a California federal district court previously issued a preliminary injunction sought by Jewish students at UCLA who were blocked from accessing portions of the campus by pro-Palestinian encampments protesting Israel's retaliation in Gaza. (See prior posting.) The Settlement Agreement (full text) (fact sheet) provides for a permanent injunction barring defendants from allowing the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty or staff from programs, activities or campus areas. It also provides for payment of $320,000 to UCLA's Initiative to Combat Antisemitism, $50,000 to each of the four student plaintiffs, $2,300,000 in contributions to eight Jewish non-profit organizations, and $3,600,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Dress Code Religious Accommodation for Apostolic Christian Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, alleging that it failed to grant a religious accommodation to an Apostolic Christian employee.  The employee wanted to wear a skirt over her work pants. According to the EEOC:

The company denied the accommodation because of its policy against loose-fitting clothing. The employee only wore close-fitting skirts over her work pants and was in compliance with company policy. Ultimately, the company forced the employee to choose between wearing a skirt or losing her job. The employee chose to continue wearing a skirt, which led to her termination.

Court Vacates EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodation of Employees' Abortions

In State of Louisiana v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, May 21, 2025), a Louisiana federal district court set aside an EEOC rule that interprets the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to require employers to provide reasonable accommodation for abortions. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction ("PI") in the case. In setting the rule aside, the court said in part:

Given the political, social, and religious significance of the abortion issue in this country, the PI Ruling explained that EEOC must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims in the Final Rule....  And as the PI Ruling emphasized, “[n]ot only is the EEOC unable to point to any language in the PWFA empowering it to mandate the accommodation of elective abortions, but there can be little doubt in today’s political environment that any version of the PWFA that included an abortion accommodation requirement would have failed to pass Congress.”...  That finding remains true today, and the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to point to clear congressional authorization for the inclusion of abortion protection in a statute intended only to accommodate and protect female employees during pregnancy.

The case was consolidated with U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC.

AP reports on the decision.

Court Invalidates EEOC Guidance on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, May 15, 2025), a Texas federal district judge held that portions of the EEOC's 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace are contrary to law.  The court held that Guidance requiring bathroom, dress and pronoun accommodations for transgender employees are inconsistent with the text, history and tradition of Title VII. The court said in part:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII's plain text by expanding the scope of "sex" beyond the biological binary: male and female....

The court invalidated the portions of the Enforcement Guidance which define "sex" in Title VII to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" and which define sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The court also specifically invalidated an Example of a Hostile Work Environment that focused on regular and intentional misgendering (using pronoun that does not match gender identity) of a transgender employee by supervisors, coworkers, and customers. AP reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Marriott Over Refusal to Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist

On Wednesday, the EEOC announced that it had filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against two Marriott corporate entities that sell vacation timeshare programs for hotels and vacation clubs, saying in part:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, management at Marriott Vacations Worldwide and Marriott Ownership Resorts initially allowed an employee, who is a Seventh-Day Adventist, a religious accommodation that allowed her to avoid Saturday shifts. After a change in management, the companies began scheduling her for Saturday shifts. After the employee made repeated complaints, they changed her schedule, negatively impacting her sales and commissions, and continued to schedule her for Saturdays, forcing her to choose between showing up to work and her religious practice. This led her to resign, the EEOC said.

Catholic Employers Get Permanent Injunction Against EEOC

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Lucas, (D ND, April 25, 2025), a North Dakota federal district court converted a preliminary injunction granted last September to a Catholic diocese and a Catholic employers' organization (see prior posting) into a permanent injunction. At issue are rules and guidance documents issued under the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The permanent injunction provides in part:

(1) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and any implementing regulations ... against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to accommodate abortion or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith, speak in favor of the same or refrain from speaking against the same.  

(2) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any implementing regulations or guidances, including the Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Fired EEOC Commissioner Sues President

Yesterday, former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels filed suit alleging that her removal from the Commission by President Trump was illegal. The removal of Samuels and a second Commissioner (both Democrats) left the EEOC without a quorum so that it cannot undertake any action that requires a Commission vote. Samuels, along with two other Democratic commissioners, had issued statements critical of President Trump's Executive Orders on DEI programs, transgender individuals and employment discrimination by federal contractors. The complaint (full text) in Samuels v. Trump, (D DC, filed 4/9/2025), alleges in part:

Congress did not grant the president authority to remove EEOC Commissioners at will.  Rather, the EEOC’s structure, mission, and functions, along with the terms set for Commissioners, demonstrate Congress’s intent to provide the Commission continuity, stability, and insulation from political pressure exerted by the president.  Because the Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, these restrictions on the president’s removal authority are constitutional....

Defendant Trump lacked cause to remove Commissioner Samuels.  The issues he identified in his January 27, 2025, email constitute policy disagreements between him and Commissioner Samuels.  By mandating bi-partisan membership on the Commission, Congress deliberately structured the agency to accommodate likely policy differences between the president and some Commissioners....

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws barring employment discrimination, including religious discrimination in employment. The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Enjoined from Enforcing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Against Christian Nonprofit Organization

In Stanley M. Herzog Foundation v. EEOC, (W.D. Mo. Oct 04, 2024), a Missouri federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and rules implementing it against plaintiff, a nonprofit Christian educational organization, where enforcement would require plaintiff to accommodate abortions that are contrary to its sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

... [T]he EEOC has not established that it used the least restrictive means to advance its interests at this stage. The Final Rule’s approach requires employers to provide accommodations for employees who obtain abortions and permits a religious employer to assert a religious defense only after an employee brings a complaint against it for refusing to provide accommodations. There is no way for a religious employer to ensure it will not face investigation or prosecution ahead of time. The Foundation suggests a number of alternatives the EEOC could have taken, which are less restrictive of its free exercise rights....  The EEOC argues these alternatives are not feasible because the PWFA does not give it authority to predetermine religious exemptions or defenses. Ultimately, the burden is on the EEOC to “prove with evidence” that its policies are the least restrictive means “to achieve its compelling interest, including alternative forms of regulation.”

... [T]he Foundation is likely to succeed on the merits of its RFRA claim.....

The Heartlander reports on the decision.

Trump Removes 2 EEOC Commissioners; New Acting Chair Says Agency Is Rolling Back Biden's "Gender Identity Agenda"

Federal News Network on Tuesday reported that President Donald Trump has removed two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One of those removed was Charlotte Burrows, formerly the Chair of the Commission until President Trump designated a new Acting Chair last week. The other Commissioner removed was Jocelyn Samuels who served as Vice Chair of the Commission until removed by President Trump from that position last week. These removals appear to leave the Commission without a quorum necessary to act.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued Tuesday, the EEOC's new Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said that the agency is "rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda," and announced the removal of various references to transgender and non-binary gender markers in forms and publications. She pointed out however that she is unable unilaterally to remove provisions in strategic plans and enforcement guidance documents that relate to protection of transgender individuals because those documents were adopted by votes of the full Commission. The press release added, in part:

... Acting Chair Lucas has been vocal in her opposition to portions of EEOC’s harassment guidance that took the enforcement position that harassing conduct under Title VII includes “denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with [an] individual’s gender identity;” and that harassing conduct includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s known gender identity.”

Although Acting Chair Lucas currently cannot rescind portions of the agency’s harassment guidance that are inconsistent with Executive Order 14166, Acting Chair Lucas remains opposed to those portions of the guidance.

“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said. “Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.”

Trump Designates New Acting Chair of EEOC

In one of the first actions taken after he was sworn in as President, Donald Trump designated new Chairmen and Acting Chairmen of 15 federal agencies. Among these was the designation of EEOC Commissioner Andrea R. Lucas to be Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She replaces Charlotte A. Burrows who will remain a member of the Commission. The EEOC adjudicates claims of employment discrimination, including religious discrimination in employment.

Suit Challenges Federal Agency Rule Changes Protecting Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court challenging rule changes interpreting five federal statutes. Defendants are HHS, Department of Agriculture, EEOC and the Department of Justice. The rule changes define sex discrimination and sexual harassment as including discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and define gender dysphoria as a disability. The complaint (full text) in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD LA, filed 1/17/2025), contends that the rule provisions are not authorized by the various statutes being implemented, are arbitrary and capricious and violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution. It also alleges that various of the rule provisions compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian Employers Sue EEOC Over Transgender Rights and Abortion Mandate

Suit was filed yesterday in a North Dakota federal district court challenging two EEOC actions. The complaint (full text) in Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (D ND, filed 1/15/2025) alleges in part:

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has improperly applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to affirm and accommodate employees’ gender-transition efforts.... This mandate, published in agency “guidance” and on its website, threatens employers with large penalties if they do not use employees’ self-selected pronouns based on gender identity, and if they do not allow males to access female single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and lactation rooms.

Second, EEOC issued a final rule that twists the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).... , a statute intended to protect pregnant mothers in the workplace, to impose a nationwide abortion mandate forcing employers to promote and facilitate elective abortion....

The suit alleges that these mandates from the EEOC violate the free exercise and free speech rights of members of the Christian Employers Alliance.

EEOC Sues Employer for Refusal to Grant Religious Accommodation to Covid Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against the North Carolina-based Rex Healthcare, Inc. for refusing to grant a religious accommodation to an employee who objected to receiving the Covid vaccination.  According to the EEOC:

[I]n 2021 Rex Healthcare implemented a policy mandating that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination unless they were granted an exemption because of their religious beliefs or a disability. The charging party in the EEOC’s suit, who worked remotely, requested a religious exemption in accordance with the policy. Even though the employee had previously been granted an exemption from being required to take the flu vaccination based on her religious beliefs, the request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied.

The employee submitted multiple follow up requests with additional explanations of her religious beliefs in support of her request. Despite the employee articulating a sincerely held religious belief, Rex Healthcare denied the employee’s accommodation requests and subsequently fired her for failing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.