Supporting Diverse Employee Needs

One employee is vegan. Another is allergic to shellfish. Another is lactose intolerant. Another has Celiac disease and can't eat gluten. And yet another is kosher. You're hosting a company lunch. What do you have to accommodate, and what should you accommodate? Let's start with the law: Under the ADA, you may be legally required to accommodate food allergies if they rise to the level of a disability (i.e., they substantially limit a major life activity like eating or breathing). That means engaging in the interactive process and considering reasonable options: labeling foods, offering allergen-free alternatives, or simply checking in with the employee to ask what works best. What about religious restrictions? Similar to the ADA, Title VII requires a reasonable accommodation (unless it imposes an undue hardship) and you should talk to the employee(s) to determine what accommodation you can make. Dietary preferences—like veganism or vegetarianism? Legally, there's no requirement to accommodate someone's choice not to eat meat, unless it's tied to a sincerely held religious beliefs (see above). Here's the bigger picture: Even if the law doesn't require it, a good employer still should make room at the table for everyone. Food brings people together—but only if everyone can actually eat it. It costs next to nothing to ask about dietary needs or to offer a few thoughtful options. But it sends a big message: we see you, and we value your full participation—not just your productivity. Whether it's a peanut allergy, kosher observance, or vegan lifestyle—respecting what your employees eat (or don't) isn't just polite. It's inclusion in action. And at the end of the day, isn't that the kind of culture you're trying to build?

She Got a Religious Exemption from Using AI at Work. Are you ready for that? A software engineer in North Carolina just received a religious exemption from using AI at work. She's a Unitarian Universalist. Her objection is grounded in environmental and ethical concerns. Her employer, a large tech company, granted it. She's now writing and reviewing her code by hand. I'm not here to mock that. Sincerely held beliefs are sincerely held beliefs, and Title VII doesn't require them to be beliefs you'd expect. But this is your AI governance framework calling. Most organizations mandating AI use have not thought through what happens when an employee says no (not for performance reasons, not for skill gaps, but for reasons your HR team has to treat seriously under federal law). The Supreme Court lowered the "undue hardship" threshold in Groff v. DeJoy (2023). That matters here. If your AI policy is written as a blanket mandate with no accommodation process, you may already have a problem. And with Pope Leo XIV's recent encyclical warning about AI, the pool of employees with colorable religious objections just got larger. The questions your governance framework should already be answering: Which AI use cases are truly mandatory versus strongly encouraged? What does an accommodation process look like, and who owns it? How do you measure performance for someone working around an AI mandate? One engineer writing code by hand is a curiosity. A wave of accommodation requests with no policy infrastructure is a liability. Build the framework before it gets built for you.

✋ 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐭, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭. That’s the warning from a recent Fifth Circuit dissent on religious accommodations. An employee asked for an exemption from a flu-shot mandate. HR denied the request, suspended the employee, then reversed course and granted the exemption only after litigation began. The majority of the court affirmed dismissal on a technicality — the appeal was inadequately briefed. But Judge Engelhardt’s dissent explained why this kind of delay still creates risk for employers. 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, no “religious tests.” HR demanded that the employee explain why her beliefs had changed from prior years. Engelhardt called that improper: ❝The hospital reasoned that because [the employee] received the vaccine in the past, there was no good reason she could refuse to receive it again. Unless, of course, she explained her religious beliefs to the employer’s satisfaction. That is itself religious discrimination.❞ Employers may confirm sincerity, but demanding theological justifications or consistency across time goes too far. 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝, even short suspensions matter. The employee lost just four days of pay, but Engelhardt rejected the idea that this was trivial: ❝Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of duration.❞ For HR, that means any period of unpaid leave tied to a denied accommodation can create liability. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝, the bar for harm is low. Engelhardt pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, which held that Title VII discrimination does not require any "threshold of harm." Being treated worse because of religion, even briefly, is enough. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡, fixing it later is not a cure. Granting an exemption after litigation began didn’t erase what came before. Engelhardt compared it to race or sex discrimination: no one would excuse temporary bias just because it ended quickly. His bottom line: ❝Religious discrimination is religious discrimination, even if it stops.❞ ⚖️ 𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧-𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥: accommodation requests deserve priority treatment, avoid unnecessary probing into belief systems, and don’t assume a late fix will shield you. Read the dissent here: https://lnkd.in/eZVU7Ti6 #TheEmployerHandbook #EmploymentLaw #HumanResources

May an employer bar an employee's religious dress or grooming practice based on workplace safety, security, or health concerns? This is the issue in the latest religious discrimination case filed by the #EEOC this time against CEMEX Construction Materials. Amanda Textor who has a decade of experience applied as Mixture Truck Driver, basically she would drive a concrete mixer and discharge concrete. On the interview she told them that she is an Apostolic Christian and wears a skirt or dress in public. She was told she  can wear a skirt if it is worn over pants. She agreed. The interviewer wanted to check with his supervisor, and the supervisor texted Ms. Textor the following: “All of our employees are held to the same standard as far as minimum standard of uniforms we provide. .....This excludes any loose fitting clothing, jewelry or hair that can become unsafe if they are snagged on a hazard. Is that something you are okay with? “ Ms. Textor was “good with it”  and realized she could wear a skirt that was not loose. She found a form fitting knee-length spandex-like skirt over her work pants. All seemed good, until HR found out. It instructed Ms. Textor to leave work because she was wearing a skirt and explained that loose material from a skirt could get caught on something. Ms. Textor responded that the skirt was not loose. Later,  Ms. Textor did something radical. She read the company safety manual. She texted HR the following: “I read the safety handbook. It states any request for accommodations should be submitted to your local HR partner. I’m assuming that’s you so how would I officially submit the request since I wear skirts for religious reasons? “ HR texted back: “We did, and it is a safety violation”. She returned in a skirt and was fired. The EEOC filed a lawsuit. Under Title VII an employee is entitled to a religious accommodation unless it poses an #unduehardship. In Groff v. DeJoy the Supreme Court ruled undue hardship' is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business." 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. It has long been the EEOC’s position that while safety, security, or health may justify denying accommodation in a given situation, the employer may do so only if the accommodation would actually pose an undue hardship. That will be the factual issue; not whether a skirt in general but this skirt posed a safety risk for someone in this position. From the complaint, it appears that HR treated all skirts the same, but the people in the field were open and agreeable to accommodations. This will be interesting to watch! #HR #TitleVII #religion #employmentlaw #employeerelations

Although Florida does not have a CROWN Act, #floridabusiness owners and #hr professionals should realize the risk of litigation in this area. A handful of Florida municipalities have ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle and hair texture. Also, although there is an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion addressing race discrimination based on hair, that opinion was limited (to the disparate treatment claim raised) but another Florida court may allow such a claim to move forward for race discrimination if brought as a disparate impact claim (because discrimination based on an afro or dreadlocks probably has more of an impact on Blacks than Whites). In this case, there is not only a race component, but the employee was a devout Rastafarian, so this type of claim could also implicate Title VII's protections based on religious discrimination. After this summer's SCOTUS opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, employer's should be mindful that courts will now analyze religious discrimination cases under a much stricter rule: to deny a religious accommodation, an employer must show that the burden of accommodation is "substantial" in the overall context of an employer's business.

Religious Accommodation When I managed the Army’s religious accommodation portfolio, the Secretary and the Chief of Staff requested an update—an update scheduled for Yom Kippur. This was shortly after the Secretary’s office had sent out the annual letter saying that commands should make accommodation for the upcoming Jewish High Holy Days (a similar letter goes out every year prior to Ramadan and other major non-Christian holidays). I, a lowly lieutenant colonel, declined the appointment and amid the general freak out, pointed to the annual letter about religious observance. All of the fuss could have been averted had the scheduler checked the calendar (ironically, since the requested update was on religious accommodation) or contacted me ahead of time to ask whether a meeting on Yom Kippur would be acceptable. Checking the multi-cultural holidays calendar before planning major events or critical meetings is a must, but should not be the limit of religious accommodation. Some religious observance requires private space for prayer at various times during the day. Other religious observance may not be compatible with the office dress code, such as a turban or headscarf, or a beard that cannot be trimmed, or the need to carry a small symbol about one’s person at all times. While I can also regale you with requests for religious accommodation in the Army that would have violated safety standards and/or various laws, most requests in the workplace are reasonable. Unfamiliarity with another religion’s customs in a society that is nearly hegemonically Christian is not a reason to deny an equitable accommodation of someone’s religious practice. Rather, we need to be as open and accommodating as possible for religious practices in the workplace so that employees feel that their faith tradition is respected and they have a greater sense of belonging in the workplace. 

Are employers be required to provide a proper space for prayer? I recently came across a Globe article asking this question (linked in Comments). In the scenario presented, an employee was being directed to pray in a stairwell, despite multiple meeting rooms sitting empty during their prayer times. So what does the law actually say? The short answer: Yes, employers have a legal duty to accommodate prayer. Across Canada, religion is a protected ground under human rights legislation. This means employers must reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices, and that accommodation is not a favour but a legal obligation. There are all kinds of concerns with directing someone to prey in a stairwell. They are high-traffic, lack privacy, and most importantly can undermine a person's dignity, which sits at the very heart of human rights law. When an empty meeting room is readily available, denying its use is hard to justify. Two nuances worth knowing: 1) Accommodation does not have to be the ideal solution, but it must be reasonable and dignity-respecting 2) An employer can only refuse if it creates genuine "undue hardship" based on cost, safety, and business impact Can a colleague advocate on someone's behalf? Yes, raising it as a general workplace concern is appropriate. Filing a formal complaint, however, requires the affected employee's direct involvement. This raises a broader question: if the solution is simple and costs nothing, why isn't it already happening? - Share with someone who needs to read this. - Follow me for more reflections on law, leadership, and the human side of work.

DOJ issued new religious liberty guidance on July 23. It is addressed to federal agencies. Private employers should read it anyway. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche released a memorandum laying out 21 principles federal agencies must follow on religious liberty. It is the first update since 2017. Nothing in it binds a private employer. However, it provides insight into how this administration's agencies read Title VII. Four points for private employers to consider: 1️⃣ Religious exercise means far more than worship. The guidance treats the right to perform or abstain from specific acts as protected religious exercise. Expect requests touching dress, grooming, speech, and particular job duties, not just Sabbath scheduling. 2️⃣ Religious expression at work carries real protection. The guidance points to longstanding federal workplace guidelines as useful examples for private employers: employees keeping religious materials at their desks, wearing religious clothing or medallions, discussing their faith with coworkers under the same limits that apply to any other employee speech. The line sits at excessive or harassing conduct. A categorical ban on religious expression in your conduct policy invites a discrimination claim. 3️⃣ Undue hardship is a steep climb. An accommodation creates undue hardship only when the burden is substantial in the overall context of your business. Temporary costs, voluntary shift swaps, and administrative costs do not clear that bar. Neither does coworker irritation. Document real operational cost or disruption, or expect to lose the argument. 4️⃣ The accommodation has to actually work. You do not owe an employee their preferred option, but whatever you offer must eliminate the conflict. And skip the sincerity interrogation. What to do ➡️: Again, the guidance does not apply to private employers. That said, there are a few things private employers can do to mitigate exposure under traditional Title VII analysis: ✅ Audit dress codes, grooming standards, attendance rules, and antiharassment language for categorical prohibitions ✅ Require a written, individualized hardship analysis before any denial ✅ Train managers to stop assuming, including declining a candidate over an anticipated scheduling conflict ✅ Match your flexibility. Schedule changes you grant for secular reasons must be available for religious ones #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #TitleVII #ReligiousAccommodation #WorkplacePolicy #FloridaBusiness #EmployerCompliance

The EEOC is taking an increasingly aggressive position on religious accommodation rights — and today’s WSJ report on a lawsuit against a Chick-fil-A franchisee over an employee’s Sabbath request is another reminder that employers need to take these issues seriously. But this isn’t just about religion. It’s about process. Too many employers still treat accommodation requests as a quick yes/no decision. That’s a mistake. The law increasingly expects a real interactive dialogue — one that explores practical alternatives, scheduling flexibility, shift swaps, modified duties, or other workable solutions before jumping to “undue hardship.” At the same time, employers are not required to undermine legitimate business operations, profitability, staffing needs, customer service, or operational efficiency. Those considerations still matter. A lot. The key is whether the employer made a GENUINE effort to reasonably accommodate where doing so was realistically possible. That’s where employers often get into trouble: Not because they ultimately said “no” — but because they failed to engage thoughtfully in the process before getting there. The EEOC has made clear that religious accommodation enforcement is a major priority. Smart employers should be reviewing their policies, manager training, and accommodation protocols now — before these issues become litigation. #EmploymentLaw #EEOC #ReligiousAccommodation #InHouseCounsel #WorkplaceLaw #HR #HumanResources