By 
For nearly fifty years, federal agencies could deny a religious accommodation request by pointing to almost any cost at all. That changed in 2023, and many agency EEO offices are still applying the old framework. Virginia federal employee law now requires an agency that refuses to accommodate a religious practice to show a burden that is substantial in the overall context of its operations, which is a materially harder showing than what came before. Employees whose requests were denied under the old standard, and agencies still citing it in denial letters, are both working from outdated law.
What did Groff v. DeJoy actually change?
It eliminated the de minimis cost test. In Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the Supreme Court held unanimously that Title VII requires accommodation of an employee’s religious practice unless the employer shows undue hardship on the conduct of its business, and that undue hardship means a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.
The de minimis language came from a single phrase in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), which lower courts had treated for decades as the governing standard. Groff said that the reading was wrong. The Court declined to import the ADA’s “significant difficulty or expense” formulation wholesale, instead directing a fact-specific inquiry that accounts for the particular accommodation requested and its practical impact given the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer.
The size point cuts strongly in favor of federal employees. A denial premised on the cost of covering one Sunday shift is a different argument when the employer is a Cabinet department with tens of thousands of employees than when it is a small business.
What counts as a sincerely held religious belief?
More than membership in an organized religion. Title VII’s definition at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) covers all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief, and the EEOC’s guidelines at 29 C.F.R. Part 1605 applies it broadly.
A belief can be religious even if it is not shared by others in the same faith, not required by any denomination, or newly adopted. Agencies sometimes deny requests on the theory that the employee’s church does not mandate the practice, which is not the test. What falls outside the definition is a belief that is social, political, or economic in nature, or a matter of personal preference dressed in religious language.
Sincerity can be questioned, but it requires an objective basis. Evidence agencies point to includes prior conduct inconsistent with the asserted belief and the timing of the request. Employees strengthen the record by explaining the belief in their own words, describing how long they have held it, and identifying the specific conflict between the practice and the job requirement.
What accommodations can a federal agency actually provide?
More than most employees realize, and the federal sector has tools the private sector does not. Section 1605.2 of the EEOC’s guidelines identifies voluntary substitutes and shift swaps, flexible scheduling, lateral transfer or change of job assignment, and modification of workplace practices such as grooming requirements.
Federal-specific options include religious compensatory time off under 5 U.S.C. § 5550a, which allows an employee to work additional hours to earn time off for religious observance, with implementing rules at 5 C.F.R. Part 550. Alternative work schedules, credit hours under a flexible schedule, telework, annual leave, and leave without pay all belong in the conversation.
That range matters legally, not just practically. An agency must show it could not reasonably accommodate the practice, which means considering options beyond the one the employee proposed. A denial that addresses only the specific request and ignores an available shift swap has not carried the burden Groff describes.
Can an agency deny accommodation because coworkers object?
Not on that basis alone. Groff was explicit that a coworker’s dislike of religious practice in the workplace, or of the mere fact that an accommodation was granted, is not a cognizable factor in the undue hardship analysis.
Effects on coworkers count only insofar as they affect the conduct of the business. Requiring other employees to work involuntary overtime week after week, or leaving a shift genuinely uncovered in a 24-hour operation, can be part of a real hardship showing. Grumbling in the break room cannot. Denial letters that lean on staff morale or fairness complaints are worth challenging on this ground specifically.
Is religious accommodation now the same as disability accommodation under Virginia federal employee law?
No, and conflating them causes problems. Groff rejected the de minimis standard but did not adopt the ADA and Rehabilitation Act framework. The disability standard remains more demanding for employers, requiring significant difficulty or expense before an accommodation can be refused.
The interactive process also differs in formality. Disability accommodation involves an established process with medical documentation and, in many agencies, a dedicated reasonable accommodation coordinator and written procedures with response timeframes. Religious requests are frequently routed through the supervisor with no comparable structure. Employees with both a religious and a medical basis for the same request should say so, because the two claims are evaluated under different standards and one may survive where the other fails.
How do you file, and what are the deadlines?
Through the EEO process, starting fast. Contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the denial under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). A formal complaint follows within 15 days of the notice of right to file, per 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(b).
Put the request in writing before it is denied. State the practice, the conflict, the accommodation sought, and the alternatives you would accept, and keep the response. Recurring denials of a standing request can each restart the clock, but relying on that is riskier than filing on the first denial. Remedies include back pay, compensatory damages subject to the statutory cap the EEOC applies at $300,000, and attorney fees.
These disputes cluster in predictable places across the Commonwealth: shift coverage at VA medical centers, uniform and grooming standards in screening and law enforcement roles at Dulles and Reagan National, respirator and facial hair requirements at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and weekend duty in DoD components around the Pentagon. Some of those raise genuine safety-based hardship arguments, and some are habit dressed as necessity. Sorting one from the other is the case.
If your accommodation request was denied with language about minimal cost, administrative burden, or coworker fairness, the denial may be resting on a standard the Supreme Court discarded. Get the denial letter reviewed by counsel practicing Virginia federal employee law while the 45-day window is still open.
Comments