EEOC Sheds Light on Religious Exemptions and LGBTQI+ Rights in DEI Era

DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have seen a surge in legal scrutiny. Some argue these programs are discriminatory, potentially violating a person’s religious beliefs, among other rights. In Groff, the Supreme Court held that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for sincerely held beliefs, barring undue hardship on the business. LGBTQI+ rights are also protected, particularly after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock, which ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited by Title VII. The intersection of DEI, religious accommodations and LGBTQI+ rights in the workplace can lead to complex situations. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently addressed one such  complex case in Barrett v. Vilsack. A design engineer employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service in Temple, Texas, claimed religious discrimination when denied an exemption from mandatory civil rights training.

Upon being informed of the training, the engineer asked if the training would cover “LGBT issues.” He explained that “[t]his subject matter contradicts [his] sincerely held religious beliefs which are protected beliefs, expressly protected by federal law.” The engineer told his employer that he would excuse himself during the LGBTQI+ segment of the training. In response to the engineer’s questions about the training, the employer explained that:

• The training would provide “information on how to treat all customers and employees with courtesy and respect and it includes specific information on how this professionalism applies to LGBT persons.”
• The training would explain “the anti-discrimination statutes that are applicable to all federal employees.”
• The training did not “require employees to change their personal beliefs, but simply discusses and reinforces the [employer’s] conduct rules requiring employees to treat one another professionally and to prevent and avoid discriminating against or harassing other employees or customers.”
• The training “was about treating customers fairly and what to do if someone wanted to file a complaint,” and was not specific to any particular group of people.
• The training would include “no direct discussions on LGBT issues.”

The employer denied the request and informed the engineer that leaving during any portion of the training could result in disciplinary action. The engineer attended the training and filed an EEO complaint nine days later claiming that his employer discriminated against him based on his religion.  

Despite the engineer's claim that the training conflicted with his religious beliefs, the EEOC found no Title VII violation by the employer. First, the EEOC found that the engineer did not demonstrate that his employer violated Title VII by failing to provide him with a religious accommodation. The engineer did not identify a religious belief, observance or practice that conflicted with the requirement that he attend the training. During the training, LGBTQI+ issues were referenced only in the context of explaining bases for prohibited discrimination. The EEOC noted that the training did not require the engineer to change his beliefs, nor did it attempt to “modify, criticize or pressure him to change his religious observance or practice – whether before, during or after the training.” The EEOC concluded that the engineer failed to show that the training conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs, observances or practices.

The EEOC also found that even if a conflict had been established, excusing the engineer from the training would have imposed undue hardship on the employer’s business, compromising the employer's duty to prevent discrimination. According to the EEOC, employers can require employees to attend training on EEO laws and internal anti-discrimination policies because “Title VII requires employers to take steps to prevent discriminatory harassment, and [employers] may be held liable if they fail to do so.”

The EEOC's decision provides guidance on its stance regarding religious accommodation in the context of LGBTQI+ discrimination and harassment issues. And, although not legally binding on federal courts, it offers valuable insight for private-sector employers, who are seeing a rise in requests for religious exemptions. The EEOC stressed that employees must show how their sincere religious beliefs conflict with workplace training. The EEOC also explained that "undue hardship" includes the impact on protected rights under Title VII, which employers must consider when weighing religious accommodation requests against their legal duties and the content of EEO-compliant training programs.

Please reach out to Maritza Sanchez or any member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team with questions or for advice and guidance.