DOJ Blesses ‘Situational Telework’ as Reasonable Religious Accommodation

Quick Hits

• Existing guidance on religion in the federal workplace largely remains intact, but federal employers now face a higher standard to demonstrate undue hardship when denying requests for religious accommodation.
• Situational telework can be a reasonable religious accommodation, but it is not an automatic entitlement, the DOJ stated in a recent memorandum opinion prepared for EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas.
• Private-sector employers may wish to consider the impact of the DOJ’s memorandum opinion on their own religious reasonable accommodation obligations.

On September 18, 2025, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion, “Religious Liberty Protections for Federal Employees in Light of Recent Legal Developments,” in response to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’s question as to how recent legal developments impacted the “Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace,” issued by the Clinton administration in 1997, and a 2017 memorandum from then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty.” The EEOC also asked if situational telework was an appropriate religious accommodation, given the federal government’s directive that federal employees return to in-person work on a full-time basis.

Prior Federal Workplace Religious Rights Guidance

The 1997 guidelines (which the 2017 memorandum noted had “the force of an Executive Order”) informed federal agencies that they did not have to provide religious accommodations if they caused more than a “de minimis cost” to the agency. The guidelines made clear that “that cost or hardship … [had] to be real rather than speculative or hypothetical” and that “the accommodation should be made unless it would cause an actual cost to the agency or to other employees or an actual disruption of work, or unless it [was] otherwise barred by law.” Agencies were instructed not to restrict personal religious expression by federal employees except where “the expression intrude[d] upon the legitimate rights of other employees or create[d] the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion.”

The DOJ’s Analysis of Prior Federal Workplace Religious Rights Guidance

The DOJ determined that the prior guidance largely remained intact, with two important changes.

First, the DOJ explained that the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision means that agencies should disregard any references in the prior guidance to the “de minimis” standard for establishing an undue hardship. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held that the undue hardship standard requires a substantial burden, rather than the previous “more than de minimis” impact undue hardship standard that courts were using.

Second, the DOJ rejected the “no official endorsement of religion” requirement as “a special restriction on religious expression without a constitutionally valid justification.” The DOJ clarified, however, that this conclusion does not permit all religious expression in the workplace; an agency still “may restrict any speech that truly interferes with its ability to perform public services.” An agency also may restrict coercive religious expression, such as, for example, a supervisor insisting that employees participate in religious activities as a condition of continued employment.

The DOJ’s Recognition of ‘Situational Telework’ as a Religious Accommodation

The DOJ also determined that federal agencies must consider situational telework as a reasonable religious accommodation, even though President Donald Trump issued a “Return to In-Person Work” memorandum on January 20, 2025. The DOJ defined “situational telework” as meaning occasional and not routine or recurring telework.

In affirming that federal agencies must consider situational telework as a reasonable religious accommodation, the DOJ pointed out that telework is a viable accommodation under other laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additionally, the DOJ noted that several courts recently have allowed Title VII claims to proceed where employers denied employees telework as a religious accommodation, although no court has definitively ruled on the issue. The DOJ also cited an EEOC-provided example of telework as a religious accommodation: when an employee’s work location is far from a place of religious observance and telework would reduce the time off needed for the observance.

The DOJ clarified that “[w]hether a particular accommodation is warranted in any given context is always a ‘fact-specific inquiry,’” noted that “[s]ome employees are unable to telework effectively given the nature of their duties, performance history, or other considerations,” and cited to an EEOC decision denying telework as a religious accommodation due to “past telework abuse and poor performance.” The DOJ warned, however, that agencies cannot deny situational telework accommodations because of concerns about fairness to other employees or co-worker disgruntlement.

Lessons for Employers

Although the DOJ’s recent memorandum opinion and the federal guidance it addresses are intended for federal agencies, the EEOC may attempt to apply these principles to private-sector employers. Accordingly, employers may wish to consider the following when reviewing religious accommodation requests from employees:

• No hostility to religion: Policies should be applied neutrally and without animus; religious exercise should be accommodated when possible.
• Broad protection for religious exercise: Federal law protects not only belief but also religious practices and observances.
• Sincerity and neutrality: Employers should usually assume the validity of a religion or religious belief and avoid favoring some religions over others; they may, however, assess the sincerity of the religious belief if objective reasons exist to do so.
• Accommodation obligation: Title VII requires reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the business or its operations, utilizing Groff’s relatively strict “substantial” burden test.
• Interactive process: Employers should engage in a discussion with the employee regarding the employee’s religious needs and possible accommodations. The reasonable accommodation ultimately provided need not be the exact one requested or preferred by the employee.
• Situational telework: This might be an appropriate reasonable religious accommodation if it addresses a religious conflict or assists employees with performing their job duties.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, and Leaves of Absence blogs as new information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts