EEOC Issues Three Significant Federal Sector Appellate Decisions

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Office of Federal Operations (EEOC/OFO) recently issued three noteworthy appellate decisions clarifying the federal government’s statutory obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws and federal court precedent to provide reasonable accommodations to religious federal employees and to pregnant federal employees. These decisions signify EEOC’s renewed and ongoing commitment to timely and even-handed application of anti-discrimination law to the federal workforce.

“The EEOC is accelerating progress to bring efficiency and effectiveness to the federal sector by promptly resolving hearings and appeals with straightforward and legally sound decisions grounded in precedent from the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts,” said EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. “These federal sector appellate decisions highlight the EEOC’s ongoing work of rooting out discrimination in the federal workforce.”

The first two EEOC decisions provide a clear statement of the federal government’s obligation under Title VII to provide its employees with effective reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the government’s operations. In Augustine V. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Veterans Affairs was found liable for failing to accommodate a Muslim physician’s practice of attending weekly prayer service. In Andy B. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Board was found liable for failing to accommodate a Christian police officer’s request for exemption from the government agency’s  COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Lucas said, “Religious liberty is a foundational American principle. These decisions remind federal employers that their employees deserve not only equal opportunity, but also equal respect for their religious beliefs and practices.”

In particular, these decisions address how federal employers must analyze undue hardship in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Groff v. Dejoy. Under Groff, undue hardship is shown only when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business. In the case, minor inconveniences or speculative concerns are not sufficient grounds to deny an accommodation to an employee or applicant. The EEOC’s decisions emphasize that when it comes to undue hardship, it is the employer's ultimate responsibility—not the employee's—to persuasively demonstrate that an accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

The third decision, Kasie L. v. United States Postal Service, demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to protecting the dignity, health, and equal opportunity of pregnant women in the federal workforce. In Kasie L., the United States Postal Service (USPS) was found liable for discriminatorily requiring a new mother to use the employee bathroom for her lactation needs when other clean private spaces were readily available. This case arose prior to the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which went into effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA requires covered employers—including the federal government—to provide reasonable accommodations to workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an employer did not necessarily have an affirmative duty to provide workplace accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. In Kasie L., the EEOC concluded that the USPS’ decision to exclude its employee from available, clean and private spaces for lactation was tainted by discriminatory bias and therefore unlawful. Federal law states that employers must provide reasonable accommodations to eligible employees or consider reasonable alternatives if appropriate.

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.