The guidance applies to federal programs, employment practices, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement actions. The department said the revision updates its 2017 Religious Liberty Guidelines and reflects U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued since those guidelines were released.

What the guidance covers

The document identifies the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly known as RFRA, and Title VII as relevant legal authorities for federal agencies handling religious-liberty issues.

In practical terms, agencies are being directed to account for those protections when they design or administer programs, make employment decisions, award or manage contracts, write rules and pursue enforcement actions. That places religious-liberty considerations across several parts of the federal government’s work rather than limiting them to a single type of dispute.

The guidance is aimed at interactions between the federal government and religious individuals and organizations. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the revision is intended to protect those individuals and organizations in their dealings with the federal government.

What is changing from the previous guidance

The Justice Department’s prior guidance was issued in 2017. The department described the new document as an update and expansion of those guidelines, with the revision taking account of Supreme Court decisions issued since that time.

The announcement does not identify a specific lawsuit, agency decision or accommodation request that the updated document resolves. It also does not establish a new statute. Instead, it sets out direction for how executive departments and agencies should account for existing constitutional and statutory protections in their work.

That distinction matters for people and organizations seeking religious accommodations or challenging federal action. The guidance may shape how agencies evaluate requests, workplace practices, contracting decisions and enforcement disputes, but it does not mean that every accommodation request must be granted.

What happens next

The next stage will be implementation by executive departments and agencies. The practical effect of the guidance will depend on how agencies apply it in federal programs, employment, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement.

Future litigation may also determine how the guidance operates in particular disputes. The Justice Department’s announcement does not itself resolve pending lawsuits, and the guidance does not change constitutional law. Courts and agencies will continue to address the specific facts and legal questions that arise in individual cases.

For religious organizations and individuals interacting with the federal government, the updated document provides a department-wide statement that religious-liberty protections should be considered in those interactions. For agencies and federal contractors, it signals that those considerations remain relevant across workplace, program, procurement, regulatory and enforcement decisions.

The July 23 announcement therefore marks an administrative policy update, not a final resolution of every religious-liberty dispute. Its significance will be measured by agency implementation and by future litigation over how constitutional protections, RFRA and Title VII apply in specific circumstances.

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