Understanding the Landscape of Accommodation
In my decades-long career as an employment attorney, one of the more nuanced and continually evolving challenges I’ve seen involves religious and cultural accommodations in the workplace. The law in this area is not only rooted in constitutional principles and civil rights statutes but also deeply connected to people’s identities and beliefs—making it as personal as it is legal.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. But what defines “reasonable” and “undue” has been the subject of much debate, especially as our workplaces become more diverse, and as societal awareness around inclusion grows.
A Shifting Standard: The Supreme Court’s Influence
For many years, the threshold for “undue hardship” was relatively low for employers, based on the 1977 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison decision. That case interpreted “undue hardship” as anything more than a de minimis—or trivial—cost. This made it easier for employers to deny accommodations.
But in 2023, the Supreme Court significantly raised the bar with Groff v. DeJoy, ruling that employers must show a substantial cost or burden to deny a religious accommodation. This shift rebalances the conversation, requiring employers to take a closer, more sincere look at how they respond to accommodation requests.
This legal evolution reflects a broader societal change: employees are no longer just cogs in a machine. They are people whose beliefs and cultural practices matter—and those beliefs are protected by law.
Practical Challenges on the Ground
In my practice, I often saw employers struggle with implementation—not because they were hostile to religion or culture, but because they lacked clear processes or feared setting precedents. Can a retail associate wear a head covering if it deviates from the company’s uniform policy? Should a manufacturing plant adjust a shift schedule to allow an employee to attend religious services? What if other employees perceive an accommodation as “special treatment”?
These aren’t easy questions. They require thoughtful dialogue, a clear understanding of the law, and a willingness to examine both company policy and culture. Employers are right to be cautious—but they must also be proactive.
That’s where preventative counsel comes in. Long before a dispute arises, it’s wise to review policies, conduct training, and establish a culture of respect. A flexible and inclusive approach not only minimizes legal risk—it improves morale and retention.
The Employee’s Role and Responsibility
It’s important to remember that the accommodation process is meant to be interactive. Employees should communicate their needs clearly and in good faith. They aren’t guaranteed the exact accommodation they request, but they do have the right to be heard and considered.
As an attorney who’s represented both sides, I often advised employees to approach these conversations constructively. Employers are more likely to engage meaningfully when requests are presented with context, flexibility, and a cooperative spirit.
Similarly, human resources professionals benefit from training that helps them distinguish between a genuine belief or practice and a preference. The goal isn’t to challenge the sincerity of someone’s belief but to understand it within a legal framework.
Cultural Practices: The Expanding Conversation
Beyond religion, cultural practices—such as dress, hair styles, or observances tied to ethnicity or national origin—are increasingly part of the accommodation conversation. Legal protections have expanded in many states and municipalities. For example, California’s CROWN Act prohibits discrimination based on natural hair styles like braids and locs.
This broader lens reminds us that accommodation is not just about complying with statutes; it’s about creating a workplace where people feel they can show up fully as themselves. It’s about respect—and that respect, in turn, fosters productivity, loyalty, and innovation.
Avoiding Litigation Through Empathy and Policy
The most contentious legal battles I witnessed could often have been avoided with earlier intervention, clearer policies, and a bit more empathy on both sides. In an increasingly polarized world, employers have an opportunity to lead by example—balancing operational needs with human dignity.
Developing clear accommodation procedures, encouraging dialogue, and maintaining written records of the interactive process are key steps. They don’t just protect the company; they demonstrate a commitment to fairness.
Final Thoughts
Religious and cultural accommodation isn’t a niche issue—it’s a reflection of how we value people in the workplace. As an attorney, I’ve seen the power of legal frameworks to enforce rights. But I’ve also seen the greater power of understanding, empathy, and proactive leadership to prevent conflict in the first place.
In today’s workplace, where diversity is the norm rather than the exception, navigating accommodations with sensitivity and clarity isn’t just good law—it’s good business. And perhaps more importantly, it’s a reminder that the best workplaces are those where everyone belongs.