Religious discrimination in hiring: accommodation rules from Abercrombie to Groff

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer with 15 or more employees, or an employment agency, to refuse to hire someone because of their religion, and "religion" includes religious practice, not only belief. The duty to accommodate covers applicants as well as employees. Two Supreme Court decisions set the rules for hiring: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2015) holds that a hiring decision motivated by a suspected need for accommodation is unlawful even if the candidate never asked, and Groff v. DeJoy (2023) holds that refusing an accommodation requires "substantial increased costs," not a trivial burden. Both remain the law as of October 2026.

This page applies those rules to the parts of hiring recruiters control: interview scheduling, assessment days, dress and grooming at interview and offer, the questions you may ask, and the religious-organization exemption. For disability accommodations, see ADA accommodations in interviews.

What does Title VII require when hiring?

The statute defines religion broadly: "The term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)). It covers employers with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" (2000e(b)) and employment agencies (2000e-2(b)). State laws often reach further: California's covers employers with five or more employees and Michigan's covers employers with one or more.

The EEOC's guidelines make two points that matter before anyone is hired. First, beliefs need not belong to an organized faith: the Commission includes "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views" (29 CFR 1605.1). Second, "the duty to accommodate pertains to prospective employees as well as current employees," so an employer "may not permit an applicant's need for a religious accommodation to affect in any way its decision whether to hire the applicant" unless it shows undue hardship (29 CFR 1605.3(b)(1)).

What did the Supreme Court decide in Abercrombie?

Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf, interviewed for a store job. The company's "Look Policy" prohibited "caps," and she was not hired. She never said she would need an exception. The Court held that did not matter (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015)):

• "An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
• "Motive and knowledge are separate concepts." An employer "who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII" even without certain knowledge of the need.
• The Court's own example is a hiring one: an employer who thinks an applicant "may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath," and whose desire to avoid that accommodation is "a motivating factor in his decision," violates Title VII.
• Neutral dress rules do not settle it: "Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation."

For recruiters, the lesson is about what gets written and said. A note like "wears a turban, may not fit the uniform" or "probably can't do Fridays" records exactly the motive Abercrombie describes. The EEOC's Compliance Manual, Section 12 includes a near-identical example of a Sikh applicant who wears a religious head covering to an interview and is not hired because the manager presumed she would need an exception to the dress code.

What counts as undue hardship after Groff v. DeJoy?

For almost 50 years, lower courts read "undue hardship" as anything more than a de minimis cost. In Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), decided June 29, 2023, the Court held that an employer "that denies a religious accommodation" must "show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business." Courts must weigh "all relevant factors," including the accommodation at issue and its "practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer." Two further holdings matter in hiring:

• "A hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice, cannot be considered 'undue.'"
• An employer must consider the accommodations available, not only the one requested; the opinion points to options such as voluntary shift swapping.

The EEOC's regulation still says "more than a de minimis cost" (29 CFR 1605.2(e)), but the Compliance Manual page, issued January 15, 2021 and still published as of October 2026, carries a note that "Groff supersedes any contrary information on this webpage." Follow Groff.

How should you schedule interviews and assessments around religious practice?

The guidelines speak to this directly: when a test or other selection procedure "is scheduled at a time when an employee or prospective employee cannot attend because of his or her religious practices," the employer "has an obligation to accommodate" unless undue hardship would result (29 CFR 1605.3(a)). In practice:

• Offer more than one slot. A scheduling link with times across several days, including some weekday options, avoids most conflicts with a Sabbath or holy day without anyone having to explain why.
• Make rescheduling routine. Say in the invitation that candidates can ask for a different time for any reason. Then honor it without asking the reason.
• Build breaks into assessment days. A superday or assessment center with fixed back-to-back sessions can collide with daily prayer times. Short breaks every 90 minutes or so, and a quiet room, cover most needs; agree any specific timing privately.
• Watch meal-based steps. A lunch interview during a fasting period, or a dinner at a venue with no suitable food, is easy to replace with a meeting.

Can you ask about availability for weekends or holidays?

This is where most hiring teams go wrong. The EEOC "has concluded that the use of pre-selection inquiries which determine an applicant's availability has an exclusionary effect" on people with certain religious practices, and treats such inquiries as a Title VII violation unless the employer shows they had no exclusionary effect or were "justified by business necessity" (29 CFR 1605.3(b)(2)). The same section describes a better procedure:

1. State the normal work hours for the job.
2. Make clear that the applicant "is not required to indicate the need for any absences for religious practices during the scheduled work hours."
3. Ask whether the applicant is "otherwise available to work those hours."
4. After a position is offered, but before the person starts, discuss any need for religious accommodation.

The EEOC's page on pre-employment inquiries and religious affiliation says employers "should avoid questions about an applicant's religious affiliation, such as place of worship, days of worship, and religious holidays and should not ask for references from religious leaders." Our illegal interview questions guide has the full table across protected classes.

What about dress, grooming and head coverings?

Headscarves, turbans, kippot, beards, uncut hair and religious jewelry are the most common accommodation issues at the interview and offer stage. Abercrombie settles the starting point: an employer may have a neutral policy, but it must give way to a religious need unless the employer can show undue hardship under Groff's standard. Pennsylvania wrote this into its 2025 CROWN Act: "religious creed" there includes "head coverings and hairstyles historically associated with religious creeds," with an exception only for tailored health and safety rules applied equally (HB 439). Our page on hair discrimination and the CROWN Act sets out how to write a safety-based grooming rule that allows a compliant alternative, such as a beard net or a fitted head covering.

Customer preference is not a hardship argument that tends to survive: under Groff, hardship from others' hostility to a religious practice "cannot be considered 'undue.'" And never let appearance language reach a scorecard; see what not to write in interview notes.

When can religious organizations prefer their own members?

Title VII "shall not apply" to "a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities" (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a)). Separately, schools and colleges "owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion" may hire employees of that religion (2000e-2(e)(2)), and religion can be a bona fide occupational qualification in narrow cases. State laws have their own versions; Texas, for example, lets religious organizations limit employment or give a preference to members of the same religion (Tex. Lab. Code 21.109).

These exemptions are about preferring people of a religion. They do not, on their own terms, permit discrimination on race, sex or other grounds. Agencies recruiting for faith-based clients should confirm in writing which exemption the client relies on before using religion as a criterion. The EEOC's National Enforcement Plan of June 4, 2026 lists, among its appellate priorities, clarifying "the constitutional and statutory limitations regarding liability" in matters involving religious organizations and employers, so expect this area to keep developing.

A checklist for recruiters and hiring managers

• Interview invitations offer several times and say rescheduling is available without a reason.
• Availability questions follow the 29 CFR 1605.3(b) method: state the hours, ask about availability "otherwise," discuss accommodation after the offer.
• Assessment days include breaks and a quiet room; meal-based steps have an alternative.
• Dress codes are described the same way to every candidate; exception requests go to HR and are assessed under Groff.
• No notes about head coverings, beards, jewelry, names or holidays; scores rest on job-related evidence only.
• Denials of accommodation are documented with the specific cost to the business, not coworker or customer preference.
• Faith-based clients' reliance on a religious exemption confirmed in writing.