Abstract

Excerpted From: Carolyn L. Wheeler, Impact of Contemporary “Culture Wars” on Religious Discrimination Claims and Defenses, 39 ABA J. Lab. & Emp. L. 1 (2026) (Full Document)

Brad Amos, a video editor, took a job in 2019 with Lampo Group based on the assumption that the position would be a good fit for him because he is a Christian, and Dave Ramsey, the head of Lampo, publicly espoused Christian values and assured Amos that Lampo is “a 'family-friendly,’ 'drama-free,’ and “non-traditional’ workplace” where Amos could “strike a good work-life balance.” All went well until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ramsey stated that Lampo’s policy was that prayer was the exclusive method to prevent infection and that anyone who took other preventive measures was showing “weakness of spirit” and was acting “against the will of God.” Amos practiced social distancing and wore a mask, consistent with his own religious belief in the “'golden rule’ of doing no harm to others” and protecting his family. For this he was “mocked and derided” and eventually terminated. Amos sued under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation, and the district court dismissed his claims. The district court held that Amos’s stated beliefs were not religious and, even if they were, Title VII only protects against discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, not conduct, even if the employee’s challenged conduct is based on his religious beliefs.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Amos plausibly stated a claim for religious discrimination under a theory of “religious nonconformity” because he did not share his employer’s religious beliefs. The court found his claim to be straightforward and said the district court erred in saying religiously motivated conduct is not protected, holding that discrimination against religiously motivated conduct is a “foundational basis for Title VII claims” and that Amos’s asserted beliefs (in the golden rule and believing that God helps those who help themselves) also were religious, plausible, and factually supported.

The Amos case is unusual in that both the employee and employer had strong but different religious views about the appropriate response to a public health crisis, but it exemplifies one way the contemporary “culture wars” play out on the stage of religious claims in the workplace. By “culture wars,” I simply mean the conflicts that erupt between social or political groups with opposing ideological views on issues of public concern. These general conflicts have existed throughout American history (think of slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, gun ownership, workers’ rights to strike, etc.), but they have been fueled in this decade not only by the COVID-19 pandemic which began in March 2020, but also by the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County in June 2020, and the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in June 2022. Each of these historic events has reverberated throughout American society and throughout American workplaces, and stirred ongoing controversy as employers have struggled to contend with volatile public reactions or simply new legal requirements. In response to these events, current workplace religious conflicts center around issues such as vaccine requirements, reproductive rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (DEI), and the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals, including the right to the use of names and pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Legal claims of religious discrimination and denial of religious accommodation have become important weapons in today’s culture wars.

This article will explore how courts traditionally have evaluated competing claims of employees and their employers in the realm of religious freedom and expression in the workplace. The Supreme Court in Groff v. Dejoy recently modified the legal standard for assessing whether requested religious accommodations could pose an undue burden on employers, and this article will also address how that new standard may affect the disposition of recent religious accommodation cases. In Part I, the article will provide background information on the Title VII requirement of reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and practices, including the definition of religion, the notice and procedural requirements for seeking an accommodation, employees’ typical accommodation requests before 2020, the question whether an accommodation must eliminate the employee’s religious conflict, and the standard that an employer must meet to show that providing an accommodation would create an undue hardship. In Part II, the article will address how these fundamental principles play out in today’s religious challenges to workplace rules involving vaccination requirements, employers’ harassment policies particularly as applied to discussions of abortion, and employers’ required training about, or provision of, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as applied to LGBTQ+ individuals.

Contemporary conflicts over sensitive issues of gender identity, systemic racism, reproductive rights, and public health crises all may present challenging demands on employers who must navigate these issues with appropriate attention to the impact of their decisions and policies on the religious views and practices of all employees. Title VII’s expansive view of religion and its carefully crafted defense to claims for religious accommodation, as recently clarified by Groff, offer a clear roadmap for reconciling the competing imperatives of all protected groups who expect and are entitled to work free from discrimination, harassment, or intimidation on any basis.

Carolyn L. Wheeler is a partner at Katz Banks Kumin and a former Assistant General Counsel in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of General Counsel, Appellate Services Division.