An Orthodox Jewish woman who, by religious law, must cover her hair with a scarf or wig after marriage, chose to wear a scarf instead of her normal wig to work on a hot day. “When I walked in, I saw that they did look at me differently, and I felt really uncomfortable,” she said. “But then, after I wore a scarf, I felt I couldn’t just switch back to a wig. So, I kept wearing scarves. But every day, I was conscious of people looking at me, conscious of people judging me, and I was so uncomfortable.”
“I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living.”
A Hispanic Catholic woman left work after an extended 10-hour shift on Good Friday. Her boss then called her at home, outside her work hours and remarked harshly, “Why are you not at the office? You have a lot of work.” When she reminded him that it was a holy day, he snorted, “Your religion is not going to pay your food or rent or give you a promotion.”
All three faced the same dilemma, summed up by the flight attendant: “I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living.”
The US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) agrees.
In a directive issued July 16, OPM ordered all federal agencies to adopt a more generous stance toward employees’ religious practices, marking a significant shift in federal workplace policy. Agencies now must accommodate employees’ religious practices—through telework, flexible schedules and leave—unless they can prove that doing so would result in “substantial increased costs.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion and requires them to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs and practices—unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship.” What qualifies as an undue hardship? That standard was raised and clarified in the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy a case that centered on a devout Christian postal worker who refused to work on the Sabbath. When the Postal Service penalized him, Gerald Groff sued—and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The decision set a precedent that religious accommodations cannot be regarded lightly nor denied easily, prompting OPM’s new guidance.
The OPM memo “strongly encourage[s]” telework as a “reasonable accommodation” to support religious observances such as Sabbath-keeping, daily prayers and fasting. It urges agencies to put the needs of employees first while balancing operational demands and to “adopt a generous approach to approving religious accommodations.”
Beyond the legal issues, religious diversity, accommodation and understanding have proven time and again to benefit a company’s bottom line, as demonstrated by studies conducted by and for the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation (RFBF), a nonpartisan group that helps organizations incorporate religious diversity into their core corporate values.
A recent study tabulated for RFBF revealed that over 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies now embrace religious inclusion as key to their diversity strategy. RFBF President Dr. Brian Grim called the figure a “tipping point” for corporate America.
With OPM’s landmark memo, the federal government has now signaled that religious freedom in the workplace is not just a legal requirement—it’s a core value deserving of vigorous defense, unwavering commitment and energetic execution.
