Managers should be trained to report these telework requests to HR or another designated entity/person just as they should be trained to report requests to telework for reasons related to a physical or mental disability.

In July 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued two memos to the heads and acting heads of federal departments and agencies: “Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes” (July 16, 2025) and “Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace” (July 28, 2025).

Both memos by their express terms apply only to federal workers. However, the guidance is likely to be considered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in interpreting Title VII as applied to private employers. EEOC acting Chair Andrea Lucas has stated numerous times that protecting religious liberty is one of her top priorities.

Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes

This OPM memo begins by discussing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. As we previously reported, in Groff, the Supreme Court clarified and heightened the undue hardship standard relative to religious accommodations.

The OPM memo then provides a number of examples of potential religious accommodations in light of Groff. Here, we focus on but one, remote work, because of the trend in corporate America toward requiring employees to return to the office. More specifically, here’s what the OPM memo states relative to remote work in relation to religious observances:

Telework as a Religious Accommodation

While implementing Return to In-Person Work, agencies are strongly encouraged, where feasible, to consider telework as a reasonable accommodation for religious practices, such as Sabbath or holiday observance, scheduled prayers, services, meditation, fasting, or other religious obligations. Telework can enable employees to fulfill religious duties without compromising agency missions. Examples include:

• Sabbath/Holiday Observance and Preparation: Allowing employees to telework on days of religious significance, or on days immediately before such days, so as to avoid travel or commuting time which may interfere with preparation or observance.

• Fasting: Permitting telework to accommodate employees who wish to take breaks in the workday to engage in fasting-related practices, such as prayer or rest, in a quieter or more private setting.

• Prayer or Religious Observances: Enabling telework to provide flexibility for employees to engage in time-specific religious practices during breaks in the workday.

Telework is often a low-cost solution that aligns with the Groff standard, as on a limited basis, it typically does not impose substantial operational burdens. Agencies should assess telework requests by considering technological feasibility, job requirements, telework eligibility, and other relevant factors telework accommodations for religious practices or observances must be justified with evidence of significant operational impact, per Groff.

In part because of this guidance, we anticipate an increase in telework requests for religious reasons. And the EEOC likely will be receptive to such requests. 

What This Means for Employers

Managers should be trained to report these telework requests to HR or another designated entity/person just as they should be trained to report requests to telework for reasons related to a physical or mental disability.

Further, the employer (ordinarily via HR) should follow its process for evaluating these requests.

Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace

The OPM memo on religious expression in the federal workplace defines broadly the right of employees to engage in religious expression in the federal workplace. While the OPM memo addresses a number of scenarios, we focus on but one, proselytizing, because there has been significant media attention given to this aspect of the guidance. Here’s what the OPM memo states:

Conversations Between Federal Employees: Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature. Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities. The constitutional rights of supervisors to engage in such conversations should not be distinguished from non-supervisory employees by the nature of their supervisory roles. However, unwillingness to engage in such conversations may not be the basis of workplace discipline.

Contrary to the interpretation by some, the OPM memo does not provide a green light to proselytizing. While the OPM memo states employees have the right to persuade others of the correctness of their religious views, it also expressly states that such efforts cannot be “harassing in nature.”

Some commentators have decried the absence of guidance on what it is meant by “harassing in nature.” While additional detail here would have been helpful, well-established law fills any gap.

If proselytizing is unwelcome, the employee should say so. If the employee makes clear the proselytizing is unwelcome, continuing such proselytizing becomes “harassing in nature” and ultimately unlawful if severe or pervasive (under federal law).

Of course, the risks of proselyting are higher if a supervisor is engaged in it because of the disparity of power. The text of the OPM memo does not address this disparity of power.

However, the OBM memo cites in a footnote Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond (1996). In Chalmers, the appellate court specifically addresses the power imbalance and employers should, too.[1]

What This Means for Employers

Chiefly, when it comes to religious expression, employers need to balance the rights of the speaker as well as those of the recipient. While the OPM memo focuses more heavily on the rights of the speaker, employers need to focus equally on the rights of the recipient, too.

However, in conducting the balance, whether it be in training or when taking corrective action, employers need to be careful not to state that proselytizing by supervisors is always inappropriate or otherwise unacceptable. To do so would be to interfere with the right of supervisors to engage in religious expression or to punish them for doing so. Instead, care must be taken to explain why and when the exercise of this right may be harassing, taking into account their power.

The OPM 2025 memo is a clarion call for federal employers not to disregard the speaker’s rights, even if the speaker is a supervisor. The EEOC likely will demand the same of private sector employers, too.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Jonathan A. Segal, and of the attorneys in our Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Notes

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.