The workplace is not a pulpit

When employees come to work, they should never have to wonder whether the next email from the boss will contain a work assignment or a sermon.

That's the issue at the heart of a new lawsuit against USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

A group of federal employees and their union have asked a federal court to block Rollins from sending agency-wide emails that preach her personal Christian beliefs to roughly 100,000 Department of Agriculture employees. The plaintiffs allege that despite already being sued over the practice, Rollins has continued using official USDA communications to quote Scripture and deliver explicitly evangelical messages—not just on Easter and Christmas, but now on Memorial Day and Independence Day as well. They are asking the court to stop the messages before the next major Christian holiday arrives.

Pride Night, Bible Verses, and When Title VII Protections Collide

Three San Francisco Giants pitchers are facing backlash after writing a Bible passage on their Pride Night caps during a team-sponsored LGBTQ+ celebration. The players cited Genesis 9:12-16, the biblical passage describing the rainbow as God's covenant with humanity. Critics viewed the gesture as a deliberate rebuke of Pride Month and the LGBTQ+ community. The Giants apologized for the pain caused. Major League Baseball warned the players for violating uniform rules.

Predictably, the story has become another front in America's never-ending culture war.

But strip away the politics and outrage for a moment, and what's left is a workplace issue every employer should understand.

While the setting is a Major League Baseball clubhouse, the legal and practical issues are no different from those employers confront every day.

The Giants wanted to send a message of inclusion. The players wanted to express their religious beliefs. Those objectives collided in public.

Welcome to the modern workplace.

Forced religion at work is a very bad idea

It started with an Easter email sent agency-wide from the top: "He has risen!" The message praised Christianity as "the foundation of our faith." Some employees were stunned. Others were offended. Many chose to stay quiet, worried about what might happen if they spoke up.

But it didn't stop there. Prayer services began appearing in government buildings. Invitations circulated. Policies allowed employees to "persuade" coworkers of their religious views. Leadership messaging leaned into a single faith tradition. And with that, the atmosphere changed. Employees described a growing sense of discomfort, pressure, and division—even when everything was labeled "voluntary."

Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy

The Wall Street Journal just profiled EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas under the headline "Trump's DEI Slayer Is Just Getting Started." On LinkedIn, Lucas replied, "thanks … that's right! Buckle up for more…"

It's… an odd flex.

Title VII protects everyone. Always has. White employees, men, Christians, and cisgender individuals are covered just the same as workers from traditionally marginized communities. Discrimination is discrimination, whoever the victim is.

But equal protection doesn't mean equal priority. And it doesn't mean the EEOC should treat anti-Christian bias, anti-American bias, or corporate DEI programs as the nation's most urgent civil-rights threats.

Religious "purity tests" are a Title VII accommodation no-no

"Are you really that religious?" is the wrong question for any employer to ask of an employee seeking a religious accommodation.

The 6th Circuit just handed down a decision in Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle that should serve as a warning to any employer tempted to test the "sincerity" of an employee’s religious belief.

Let's count the ways Pete Hegseth's speech would get your company sued

If Pete Hegseth were your CEO, I'd be drafting your EEOC position statement tomorrow.

You're not running the Department of War (née Defense), and your employees aren't soldiers. If you think, however, Hegseth's speech yesterday is a model for shaping culture in your workplace, here's a lawyer's caution: his words are an employment-law nightmare.

The Feds say that proselytizing at work is okay, but it shouldn't be

"The power of Christ compels you!" … could soon be coming to a workplace near you.

The Trump administration has issued new guidance allowing federal employees to display religious items at their desks, pray in groups off the clock, and even try to convert their coworkers.

You read that right. Government employees can now "attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views" and "encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities," so long as it's not "harassing in nature."

When rights collide: religious beliefs vs. gender identity in the workplace

An employee tells HR, "I can't use my coworker's preferred pronouns. It's against my religion." What now?

This isn't theoretical or hypothetical—it's happening in businesses across the country. Just ask Spencer Wimmer, a former Generac Power Systems employee who refused to use a transgender colleague's pronouns on the basis of his Christian faith and was fired as a result. He's now filed an EEOC charge, claiming religious discrimination.

This is not an isolated development. It's the front lines of a growing legal and cultural tension: What happens when one person's protected rights collide with another's?

Here's my take: We can't use religion as a license to discriminate.

Managing employees' food allergies and preferences in the workplace

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:

Faith, fetus photos, fired: How Title VII grounded a Southwest termination

"This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women's MARCH in DC… You truly are Despicable in so many ways."

That's one of several messages Charlene Carter, a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, sent to her union president—this one accompanied by a graphic photo of an aborted fetus.

Southwest fired Carter for violating its Workplace Bullying and Hazing Policy and Social Media Policy. Carter sued, claiming religious discrimination—that she sent those messages because the union's support of "women’s rights" conflicted with her religious beliefs about abortion.

Holy hypocrisy: When "religious freedom" only protects one religion

"My Administration will not tolerate … unlawful conduct targeting Christians.…My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified."

That's the key takeaway from Trump's Executive Order on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

What does that look like in practice? According to Politico, the State Department has ordered employees "to report on any instances of coworkers displaying 'anti-Christian bias.'" The internal memo allows (but doesn't require) anonymous reporting and encourages submissions to be "as detailed as possible, including names, dates, [and] locations (e.g., post or domestic office where the incident occurred)."

Neurodivergence is not an excuse for racism

"He's on the spectrum" is not an excuse for racism.

I've seen more than one person attempt to justify Elon Musk's Nazi salute, or dismiss it, citing his Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism spectrum disorder.

I call 🐂💩!

Bigotry, racism, and antisemitism are not symptoms of Asperger's or autism. They are, however, hallmarks of being a bigot, racist, or antisemite.

Must you accommodation an employee's religion not to attend DEI training? Believe it or not, it might depend on the training.

"Your respectful workplace training is against my religion; count me out."

That's what one employee told his employer when it tried to compel him to attend its mandatory training about treating all with courtesy and respect.

When the employee learned that one module of the training would include LGBTQI+ issues, he explained to his employer, "This subject matter contradicts my sincerely held religious beliefs." He advised that he would excuse himself during that portion of the training.

A lesson in how NOT to testify

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

UPenn President Liz Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.

Stefanik: So the answer is yes.

Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.

Stefanik: It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer. Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?

Magill: If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes.

Stefanik: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable. Ms. Magill, I'm gonna give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's Code of Conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

Magill: It can be harassment.

Stefanik: The answer is yes.

This case perfectly illustrates religious accommodations post-Groff

Elimelech Shmi Hebrew is a devout follower of the Hebrew Nation, a religion that requires its followers to keep their hair and beard long — a vow he has kept for over two decades.

The Department of Criminal Justice has a grooming policy that prohibits male officers without medical skin conditions from having beards and in any case from having long hair.

Hebrew applies for a job as a corrections officer with DCJ. What wins out — Hebrew's religion or DCJ's grooming policy?

Employers need to be more vigilant than ever with anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim bias

Not all Jews are Zionists colonizers, and not all Muslims are Hamas terrorists. In fact, most aren't. Moreover, you can oppose the policies or actions of the Israeli government without being antisemitic and oppose Hamas without being anti-Muslim.

Yet, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict front and center into our lives, and as a result also into our workplaces. You can't stop employees from talking about current events, especially when those events are so horrific and so impactful on so many of us. Your employees will be talking about what's happening in Israel and Gaza. The key for employers is to make sure those discussions remain calm and respectful.

Employees shouldn’t have to choose between their religion and their job

Is there any legitimate reason a concierge must be clean shaven as a condition of employment? That question is at the center of a new lawsuit the EEOC filed against Blackwell Security Services.

The EEOC alleges that a Blackwell supervisor told a Muslim hiree that it was company policy that all employees be clean shaven. When the employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or be terminated. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard. The EEOC charge and its lawsuit followed.

Work and religion aren’t a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup

Everyone's relationship with God — whether you call that deity God, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, something else, or nothing at all — is personal. I have no opinion on your spiritual relationship, as should you have none on mine. Thus, I get mad whenever someone tries to shove their religious beliefs down my throat. Not only do I not care, but I can guarantee that you will not change my mind. Proselytism is one small step removed from fanaticism, and rarely, if ever, has anything good come from religious fanaticism.

I share the above as prologue to today's discussion, which focuses on a Title VII lawsuit the EEOC recently settled with Aurora Pro Services, a North Carolina residential home service and repair company, alleged to have required employees to participate in religious prayer sessions as a condition of employment. 

Can an employer require that employees be of a specific faith? Believe it or not, it depends.

"Mature orthodox Christian faith as defined by the Apostles' Creed."

That is one of the qualifications listed in a job posting for a filmmaker position. The employer — the International Justice Mission — is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the mission of which is to combat human trafficking and slavery, violence against women and children, and police abuse of power worldwide.

Can IJM make a certain religious faith a job qualification or otherwise ask about religion as part of the hiring process?

It depends on whether "religion" is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for that employer.

An employee may not have a right to receive a reasonable accommodation, but they at least have a right to conversation about it

The EEOC has sued Mercy Health St. Mary's for religious discrimination, claiming that it violated Title VII by rescinding a job offer to an applicant who, for religious reasons, refused to obtain a flu vaccine pursuant to hospital policy.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the hospital arbitrarily denied the applicant's request for an accommodation from its vaccination policy and rescinded the job offer, without specifying why or how the request for an exemption accommodation was deficient. Instead, the EEOC alleges, it should have offered an opportunity to supplement the accommodation request to address any perceived deficiencies.