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.

EEOC Suit Charging Failure to Accommodate Messianic Jewish Employee's Holidays Is Settled

The EEOC announced last week that Center One and Capital Management Services, two related companies, have settled a Title VII lawsuit that was brought by the EEOC and subsequently remanded for trial by the 3rd Circuit.  The suit charged failure to accommodate an employee's religious practices. The employee joined the case as a plaintiff.  According to the EEOC:

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that in October 2016, a Center One employee, an adherent of Messianic Judaism, requested a reasonable accommodation of his religious belief requiring abstaining from work on religious observance days.... Center One refused to grant the employee a schedule modification to observe religious holidays because he was unable to provide a certification from a religious leader or religious organization supporting his request. Instead, the company imposed disciplinary points against the employee..., even after being informed he was unable to obtain the requested certification because he was not a member of a congregation, thereby forcing the employee to resign....

The parties subsequently agreed to settle the case before trial, and on Oct. 24, the federal court approved the 18-month consent decree resolving the litigation. In addition to paying $60,000 to the employee, Center One and Capital Management Services are prohibited going forward from unlawfully denying reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices, and they are specifically barred from requiring that employees provide a certification from a religious leader, organization, or group as a general precondition for obtaining religious accommodation....

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate Muslim Applicant's Worship Schedule

On Sept. 30 the EEOC filed a suit under Title VII charging a Washington-state based staffing and recruiting agency with religious discrimination and retaliation against a Muslim job applicant. According to an Oct. 3 EEOC Release:

Logic Staffing invited the applicant to interview ... the day after receiving his online application. On the strength of his application and interview, the staffing supervisor started to explore available openings when the applicant, who is Muslim, disclosed a possible need for a longer mid-day break to attend Friday prayer.... Logic Staffing's supervisor ended the interview and noted that the applicant was not hired due to his schedule and need to attend Friday prayer....

“Title VII requires employers, employment agencies, and unions to make adjustments to the workplace environment to allow applicants and employees to practice their faith, absent undue hardship,” said Elizabeth Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Instead of exploring alternatives and contacting its business clients to determine if accommodation was possible, Logic Staffing turned away a promising candidate and violated the law."

EEOC Rules on Accommodating Abortions and Barring Transgender Discrimination Burden Religious Exercise of Catholic Diocese

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows, (D ND, Sept. 23, 2024), a North Dakota Catholic diocese and a Catholic organization supporting Catholic employers challenged rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as well as Enforcement Guidance issued by the agency relating to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  In the case, a North Dakota federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing against plaintiffs requirements that they accommodate employees' abortions or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith. It also enjoined the EEOC from enforcing anti-harassment provisions in a way that would require plaintiffs to speak or refrain from speaking in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; require plaintiffs to use pronouns inconsistent with a person's biological sex; or allow person to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex. The court said in part:

It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age.... One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.  

The current suit falls into a long line of cases that should be unnecessary in a country that was built on the concept of freedom of religion. Unfortunately, these cases are essential for faithful individuals where government mandates run counter to core religious beliefs. One would think after all this litigation, the government would respect the boundaries of religious freedom. Instead, it seems the goal may be to find new ways to infringe on religious believers’ fundamental rights to the exercise of their religions....

The CBA has detailed its sincerely held beliefs about human sexuality and procreation.... This belief includes a witness that these actions are immoral.... At the very least its actions would violate the retaliation provision because the employee would be fired for violating the Catholic faith by asking for an accommodation for the conduct at issue here. Because the interpretations of PWFA and Title VII threaten litigation for adhering to sincerely held beliefs, these guidelines and the underlying statutes place a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

News From the States reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for the lead.] 

Company Settles EEOC Suit for $110,000, Compensating Employee Whose Religious Objections to Vaccine Were Ignored

 A national furniture retailer, Hank's Furniture, has settled a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the EEOC. Under a consent decree, Hank's will pay $110,000 in damages and will implement a written policy assuring broad accommodation of religious beliefs that do not impose an undue burden. According to the EEOC's press release:

... [A] former assistant manager at HFI’s Pensacola, Florida, location notified the company that her religious beliefs prevented her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Rather than discuss the employee’s religious beliefs to determine the feasibility of an accommodation, management ignored accommodation requests then summarily denied the employee’s requests and attempted to dispute the validity of her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

EEOC Obtains Settlement for Failure to Accommodate Jewish Employee's Sabbath Observance

The EEOC today announced that two related automotive hauling and logistics companies have agreed to a $65,000 settlement (plus an injunction, reporting, monitoring and employee training requirements) to settle a Title VII suit charging them with religious and racial discrimination and retaliation.  The EEOC said in part in its press release:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Wheeler subjected Charles R. Lynch, III, a Torah Observant employee at its Sheffield, Ohio, location to discrimination when they revoked his religious accommodation that would have allowed him to continue having Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. The company also exposed Lynch, who is Israeli, to unlawful harassment that included likening him to a terrorist and mocking his religious beliefs.

Court Says States Lack Standing to Challenge EEOC's New PWFA Abortion-Accommodation Rule [CORRECTED]

In States of Tennessee et. al. v. EEOC, (ED AR, June 17, 2024), an Arkansas federal district court held that 17 states that are plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge an EEOC Final Rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  At issue is the Rule's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodation for employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

[The states] press dual theories of injury -- sovereign harms and economic harms. The sovereign harms, the States say, are twofold: the rule will abridge their ability to regulate abortions and their interests in maintaining a pro-life message in dealing with state employees. The economic harms are the rule-related compliance costs the States say they will incur in response to potential enforcement....

The sovereign harms are not imminent because there is no credible threat of enforcement. ...

Even assuming an injury in fact, though, the States' sovereign-injury theory still fails for lack of causation and redressability. ...

Unlike in situations involving private employers, the EEOC cannot bring enforcement actions against state employers....  If an agreement isn't reached within thirty days after a charge is filed, the EEOC "shall take no further action and shall refer the case to" the Department of Justice"....

That leaves the alleged economic harms. The States don't claim any sunk costs. They only say that their compliance costs are imminent.. This economic-harm theory fails for two reasons.

First, the challenged costs-- those resulting only from rule-related compliance activities associated with illegal, elective abortions are neither concrete nor particularized. ...

Second, even assuming some concrete and particularized compliance costs related to illegal, elective abortions, these costs are not fairly traceable to any threat of enforcement....

Beyond the intense controversy surrounding abortion, there are no signs that this is a major questions case. Chevron's general rule applies.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said this was decided by a Tennessee federal district court. 

A Louisiana federal district court has just reached the opposite conclusion (see prior posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Says EEOC Exceeded Its Authority in New Rules Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

In State of Louisiana v. EEOC, (WD LA, June 17, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two Louisiana dioceses, postponing the effectiveness of new EEOC rules under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that require employers to accommodate employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the PWFA, it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation at this time (and, indeed, over the past 50 years).  The Court is therefore not persuaded, on the record before it, that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted the EEOC the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.

In this sense, EEOC’s use of its regulatory power to insert the issue of abortion into a law designed to ensure healthy pregnancies for America’s working mothers squarely implicates the “major questions doctrine” as enunciated by the Supreme Court....  The major questions doctrine applies when an “agenc[y] assert[s] highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”...

Clearly, EEOC failed to include a broad religious exception in the Final Rule, and... EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA religious exception – inasmuch as it mirrors the religious exception in Title VII, an antidiscrimination statute – does not square with the PWFA.

See prior related posting.

Catholic Bishops Sue EEOC Over Rules Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Suit was filed last month in a Louisiana federal district court by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University of America and two Louisiana Catholic dioceses challenging rules adopted in April of this year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  The Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for employees in connection with pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. At issue in the recent lawsuit is the EEOC's inclusion of abortion as a related medical condition. The complaint (full text) in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, filed 5/22/2024) alleges in part:

The PWFA is not an abortion accommodation mandate. Rather, it fills a gap in federal employment law by ensuring pregnant women receive workplace accommodations to protect their pregnancies and their preborn children. Plaintiff United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enthusiastically supported the law’s bipartisan passage. That support reflected the PWFA’s uncontroversial and laudable purpose, which is fully consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief that all human life is imbued with innate dignity and its goal of ensuring a fairer workplace for women. But EEOC has now shoehorned a mandate that employers across the country knowingly support abortion into a statute explicitly designed to protect the health and safety of preborn babies and their mothers.  

Worse, at the same time that it expands federal law into fraught areas, EEOC also insists on nullifying the explicit religious exemption that Congress wrote into the PWFA. In the PWFA, Congress imported Title VII’s religious exemption, which expressly allows employers to make employment decisions based on sincere religious beliefs. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-5(b). Of course, since the PWFA concerns only pregnancy in the workplace, this makes clear that Congress meant to allow religious exemptions from pregnancy-accommodation claims. Yet now EEOC claims the exemption bars only religious discrimination claims—which aren’t authorized by the PWFA in the first place. That renders the exception a nullity, protecting employers from PWFA claims that don’t exist.

National Review yesterday reported on the lawsuit.