The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Stopping Religious Discrimination
The musical Parade recently opened at the Kennedy Center, following a 2023 Broadway revival, which won a Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical. Parade tells the story of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager in Atlanta, Georgia in the early 20th century.
Frank was wrongly convicted in 1913 of murdering 13-year-old Mary Phagan and was lynched after his death sentence was commuted. Directed by Harold Prince, the original Broadway production won Tony Awards for Best Book and Best Score and drew attention to Frank’s case.
Named for the Confederate Memorial Day Parade, which starts and finishes the musical and represents the antisemitism and racism of the era. At the first Broadway preview in 2023, members of a neo-Nazi group protested outside the theater, distributing antisemitic flyers and shouting at theatergoers. Composer Jason Robert Brown noted the bitter irony of seeing antisemitic protestors at a musical about antisemitic mob violence.
As a result of this attention, Frank’s case remains one of the most studied examples of antisemitism in the American legal system. The case against Frank relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a janitor, Jim Conley, who changed his story many times, and the prosecutor disregarded evidence favoring Frank.
For instance, Conley first claimed not to be able to write, only to later admit he wrote notes found near Pharan’s body (but claimed Frank told him to write them). The paper on which the note was written wasn't like that in Frank's office but rather, of a type stored in the basement, to which Conely would have had access. And a bystander’s report of hearing a woman’s screams coming from the basement during a time when Frank had left the factory to go to lunch was disregarded. Historians have concluded that Conley likely committed the crime.
In 1982, an 83-year-old man, who had been a 14-year-old office boy at the time of the murder, testified that he saw the janitor carrying Phagan’s body to the basement by himself. In 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued Frank a posthumous pardon, implicitly acknowledging that the conviction was fueled by antisemitism rather than fact.
Antisemitism isn’t limited to the legal system. It also can exist in the workplace. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently renewed its focus on religious discrimination, including antisemitism, in the workplace.
In August 2025, the EEOC released its “200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work” report (EEOC Report), addressing antisemitism and other forms of religious discrimination. And in July 2025, the EEOC announced that Columbia University had agreed to pay $21 Million to resolve allegations of antisemitism in its workplace. This article discusses the Columbia University settlement, the EEOC Report, and recent EEOC cases involving religious discrimination.
Religious Discrimination under Federal Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination “because of religion.” This prohibition includes antisemitism, as well as other forms of religious discrimination, and can manifest in several ways:
Disparate treatment: intentional discrimination, such as firing someone for being Jewish or refusing to promote someone because they are Hindu.
Disparate impact: neutral rules that disproportionately harm a religious group, such as requiring Saturday work of Jews or Seventh Day Adventists (who observe the Sabbath on Saturday) without exceptions.
Hostile work environment: harassment based on religion that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, such as intentionally serving only pork at company events and disparagement of a Jewish or Muslim employee for refusal to eat it.
Failure to accommodate: refusing reasonable accommodations for religious practice unless the employer can show undue hardship, such as refusal to allow a Jewish man to wear a kippah, a Muslim woman to wear a hijab, or a Sikh man to have a beard.
Most EEOC cases begin when an employee files a charge of discrimination. The Commission investigates, determines whether there is “reasonable cause” to believe discrimination occurred, and attempts conciliation with the employer. If conciliation fails, the EEOC may sue in federal court or issue a right-to-sue letter allowing the employee to proceed.
If a hearing ensues, the petitioner/complainant needs only to show what’s known as a “prima facie case,” that disparate treatment or impact, failure to accommodate, or a hostile work environment occurred. The employer may successfully defend a case by demonstrating that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the activity comprising the “prima facie case” and that the individual could not be accommodated without “undue hardship.”
For instance, a restaurant that refused to allow a Sikh man to have a beard might try to justify the action by citing the health code. While that might be a legitimate non-discriminatory basis, the employee likely could have been accommodated without undue hardship by wearing a beard net, which would comply with health code requirements. So, despite the legitimate non-discriminatory basis for the no-beards rule, the employer discriminated against the employee by not providing him with a reasonable accommodation.
The Columbia University Case
The Columbia case is unusual because it was brought through a Commissioner’s Charge, meaning that rather than being started by an employee claiming discrimination, the EEOC launched the investigation on its own initiative. The EEOC rarely initiates cases and usually only does so when there is evidence of a systemic violation that employees may be unwilling or unable to pursue.
The EEOC alleged that after the October 7, 2023 terror attacks on Israel, the campus climate turned hostile towards Jewish employees. They described antisemitic remarks from colleagues, comments that minimized or even justified violence against Jews, and a pattern of disparagement of Jews. The EEOC claimed that Columbia failed to take effective steps to stop this conduct and instead, acted with “deliberate indifference.”
The EEOC also claimed that Columbia failed to investigate claims made by Jewish employees and allowed anti-Jewish vandalism, such as swastikas, to go unpunished. The EEOC claimed that the result was a hostile work environment where antisemitism was so pervasive as to interfere with Jewish employees’ employment.
Columbia settled the case without admitting wrongdoing. Publicity about the settlement is focused on the $21 Million settlement fund created for victims, demonstrating that the EEOC perceived the case as having caused significant damage to Jewish employees. Other terms of the settlement require that Columbia implement training, update policies, and submit to EEOC monitoring.
Other Religious Discrimination Settlements in 2025
With the new administration, the EEOC has prioritized elimination of religious discrimination. Although less prominent than the Columbia case, collectively, the EEOC Report and several additional cases demonstrate the EEOC’s renewed focus on Title VII. These cases fall into several categories.
Accommodation of Sabbath Observance
In May, the EEOC sued Marriott Vacations Worldwide, claiming that after a change in management, the company refused to continue accommodating a Seventh-day Adventist employee who observed Saturday as the Sabbath and started scheduling her to work on Saturdays, forcing her to resign. In June, the EEOC brought a similar case against Omni Hotels, claiming the employer denied an employee’s request not to work on her Sabbath and retaliated against her by reducing his hours.
In July, the EEOC brought a case against FCA US, LLC, a company that manufactures Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat vehicles, claiming it violated Title VII when it revoked an accommodation that excused an employee from working on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath. According to the EEOC, the company also disciplined the employee for attendance violations when he refused to work on Saturdays and declined his request to take unpaid leave for Passover. When the employee did not show up for work on Passover, he was fired.
Apparel and Modesty
In June, the EEOC sued CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, arguing that the company violated Title VII when it refused to let a female truck driver wear a close-fitting skirt over pants, as required by her religion, claiming safety requirements. When the truck driver wore the skirt anyway, she was fired.
In August, the EEOC resolved a case against The Teeth Doctors, a North Carolina dental practice that denied an employee’s request to wear a scrub skirt, instead of pants, because of her religious beliefs. The practice agreed to pay $61,000 to train employees, post a notice about the settlement and employment discrimination laws, and establish new policies and procedures.
Religious Expression
In July, the EEOC sued The Rock Snowpark in Wisconsin, claiming that it terminated a lift operations manager for posting Bible verses and religious reflections on his personal social media. The posts did not mention coworkers or workplace issues, yet his supervisor told him not to post them and later terminated him.
According to the EEOC news release on the case, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas commented, "While employers must remain alert to potential harassment in the workplace, religious statements made outside of work that do not reference or impact anyone in the workplace do not constitute unlawful harassment."
Vaccine Mandates
The EEOC also has brought several cases involving employees in non-medical roles who were denied accommodations to be exempted from the COVID-19 vaccine based on their religious beliefs or disability. These cases don’t claim that vaccine mandates don’t have their place. Rather, the EEOC claims that these particular employees could have been accommodated without undue hardship because they were in non-medical roles.
Silver Cross Hospital denied requests from two employees whose jobs did not involve patient contact for exemption from taking the vaccine. Both employees were subsequently fired or forced to quit.
One employee, who worked in the insurance department, had had a severe allergic reaction to her first dose of the vaccine and requested that she not be required to take another dose as an accommodation based on a disability. The other employee, who worked in the lab, requested an exemption from the vaccine due to her religious beliefs.
It's important to note that in the Silver Cross Hospital case, the EEOC didn’t claim all vaccine mandates are unlawful, just that these particular employees’ positions were such that their requests could have been accommodated without undue hardship.
The EEOC brought a similar case against the Mayo Clinic for denying an employee in a non-medical role an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine based on his religious beliefs. Instead of permitting the employee, a security guard, the accommodations he requested – undergoing regular COVID-19 testing and wearing a mask, Mayo forced the employee to receive the vaccine to avoid being fired.
Takeaway for Employers
While the Columbia case is the largest settlement in nearly 20 years, it is not the only religious discrimination case the EEOC has settled this year. According to a March 5, 2025 news release, one of the EEOC’s priorities is “protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including the egregious and widespread antisemitism that has plagued some of our country’s elite universities,” so the Columbia case may not be the last such case.
The cases discussed show that the EEOC isn't limiting its focus on religious discrimination, including antisemitism, to campuses. All employers should recognize that antisemitism and hostility toward religious groups raise serious Title VII issues. Such hostility can’t be justified as political debate, cultural discourse, or a difference of opinion. The Columbia settlement and other cases suggest that the EEOC won’t hesitate to hold employers accountable for workplace hostility toward individuals’ religions when the affected individuals are reluctant to do so.
Further, the vaccine mandate cases demonstrate that having a legitimate non-discriminatory basis for a policy isn’t enough for an employer to beat a claim of religious discrimination. The employer also must demonstrate that it is unable to accommodate the employees' religious beliefs without undue hardship.
© 2025 by Elizabeth A. Whitman
Any references to clients and their legal situations have been modified to protect client confidentiality.
DISCLAIMER: The content of this blog is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice to any person. No one should take any action regarding the information in this blog without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Neither reading this blog nor communication with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or Elizabeth A. Whitman creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will exist with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or any attorney affiliated with it unless a written contract is signed by all parties.