https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#_Toc203359488

Different types of fact patterns may arise in relation to Title VII religious discrimination, including:

treating applicants or employees differently (disparate treatment) by taking an adverse action based on their religious beliefs, observances, or practices (or lack of religious beliefs, observances or practices) in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, discharge, and benefits; taking adverse action motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating a religious belief, observance, or practice that the employer knew or suspected may be needed and would not pose an undue hardship; denying a needed reasonable accommodation sought for an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices if an accommodation will not impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the business; intentionally limiting, segregating or classifying employees based on the presence or absence of religious beliefs, observances, or practices (also a form of disparate treatment), or enforcing a neutral rule that has the effect of limiting, segregating, or classifying an applicant or employee based on religious beliefs, observances, or practices and that cannot be justified by business necessity (disparate impact); subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs, observances, or practices (or lack of religious beliefs, observances or practices) or because of a belief that someone of the employee’s religion should not associate with someone else (e.g., discrimination because of an employee’s religious inter-marriage, etc.); retaliating against an applicant or employee who has opposed discrimination on the basis of religion, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding discrimination on the basis of religion, including by filing an equal employment opportunity (EEO) charge or testifying as a witness in someone else’s EEO matter, or complaining to a human resources department about alleged religious discrimination. Although more than one of these issues may be raised in a particular case, they are discussed in separate parts of this manual for ease of use.

· NOTE TO EEOC INVESTIGATORS · Charges involving religion, like charges filed on other bases, may give rise to more than one theory of discrimination (e.g., termination, harassment, denial of reasonable accommodation, or other forms of disparate treatment, as well as retaliation). Therefore, these charges could be investigated and analyzed under all theories of liability to the extent applicable.

A. Definitions Overview: Religion is very broadly defined for purposes of Title VII. The presence of a deity or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under Title VII. Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer.

1. Religion Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.[18] Religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.[19] Further, a person’s religious beliefs “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.”[20] A belief is “religious” for Title VII purposes if it is “religious” in the person’s “own scheme of things,” i.e., it is a “sincere and meaningful” belief that “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.”[21] The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”[22] An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23]

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[24] Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[25] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[26]

Courts have looked for certain features to determine if an individual’s beliefs can be considered religious. As one court explained: “‘First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.’”[27]

Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by Title VII.[28] However, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religion protections, as long as that view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an “isolated teaching.”[29] Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, and refraining from certain activities. Determining whether a practice is religious turns not on the nature of the activity, but on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons.[30] Whether the practice is religious is therefore a situational, case-by-case inquiry, focusing not on what the activity is but on whether the employee’s participation in the activity is pursuant to a religious belief.[31] For example, one employee might observe certain dietary restrictions for religious reasons while another employee adheres to the very same dietary restrictions but for secular (e.g., health or environmental) reasons.[32] In that instance, the same practice in one case might be subject to reasonable accommodation under Title VII because an employee engages in the practice for religious reasons, and in another case might not be subject to reasonable accommodation because the practice is engaged in for secular reasons.[33] However, EEOC and courts must exercise a “light touch” in making this determination.[34]

The following examples illustrate these concepts: