EEOC Sues Gravity Autos Over Request to Avoid Saturday Sabbath Work

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on June 30, 2026 that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Gravity Autos, alleging the company denied a sales employee a reasonable religious accommodation tied to weekly Sabbath observance and then fired him after he objected to the denial. The EEOC says the employee, a member of a Hebrew Israelite congregation, informed his manager when he was hired that he could not work during his weekly Saturday Sabbath and on High Holy Days. The manager initially approved the schedule, but the lawsuit alleges that later the employee was required to work Saturdays because it would be “unfair” to other employees. When the employee declined, the EEOC says he raised that the instruction was religious discrimination and was immediately terminated. (Allegations are not findings.)

What Title VII requires in religious accommodation cases

Under Title VII, employers generally must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances when doing so would not impose an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the employer’s business. The EEOC’s workplace guidance describes an expectation of communication and problem-solving: employees (or applicants) should notify the employer when they need a religious accommodation, and if the employer needs more information, the employer and employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request. If an accommodation would not create undue hardship, the employer must grant it.

What “undue hardship” means after Groff v. DeJoy

When an accommodation request conflicts with a work requirement—such as scheduling, shift coverage, dress and grooming rules, or time-off practices—an employer may be able to deny the request only by showing undue hardship. In Groff v. DeJoy (decided June 29, 2023), the Supreme Court emphasized that the undue-hardship inquiry is fact-specific and focuses on burdens on the employer’s business. The Court also clarified that “undue hardship” is not just a minimal burden; it points toward a standard closer to substantial additional costs or expenditures. The Court further noted that some effects on co-workers will not automatically qualify as undue hardship, depending on the overall context.

The alleged workplace dispute in the Gravity Autos case

In the EEOC’s complaint, the central conflict is scheduling for Sabbath observance. The EEOC alleges the employee told his manager about High Holy Days and his weekly Saturday Sabbath when he was hired. The lawsuit contends that after the manager initially approved the requested schedule, the manager later required Saturday work and justified the change by saying it would be “unfair” to other employees. The EEOC also alleges retaliation: after the employee refused Saturday work and opposed what he viewed as religious discrimination, the manager terminated him. The EEOC says it filed the case after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The lawsuit is styled EEOC v. Hermes USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-3652, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

What happens next after an EEOC lawsuit is filed

For readers, the key point is timing: an EEOC lawsuit is an accusation that a court will address, not a final decision. After filing, the case will move into the federal court process, where both sides will typically develop the facts through pleadings, evidence, and motions. In disputes like this, a recurring question is whether the requested accommodation—or a reasonable alternative—could have been granted without undue hardship, and what burdens the employer can prove with specific evidence.

Practical checklist for accommodation conversations

• Put the request in writing: calendar the dates or patterns tied to religious observance (for example, weekly Sabbath and High Holy Days).
• Engage in the interactive process: if the employer asks for details, provide them and discuss options for schedules or coverage.
• Ask about alternatives: if the requested schedule is not possible as stated, clarify what accommodation options are being considered and why.
• Track responses and dates: document conversations, approvals, changes, and any discipline that follows.
• Do not assume “unfair to others” ends the analysis: the EEOC’s position is that employers still must evaluate whether accommodating the employee would impose undue hardship.

Sources

• EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Section 12 (Religious Discrimination)
• U.S. Supreme Court opinion: Groff v. DeJoy (No. 22-174) (June 29, 2023) – undue hardship standard