Telework for Religious Accommodation: OPM Guidance (CPM 20025-11)

In what can only be described as a irony, with the issuance of the July 16, 2025, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memorandum (CPM 2025-11), the federal government has expanded telework, through a "clarification" concerning the strict return-to-office mandates and "religious liberty".

While the executive branch is prioritizing (forcing) a return to in-person work since January 20, 2025, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 remains a robust shield for employees of faith. This post breaks down the new guidance, explaining how EEO rights for federal employees regarding religious accommodation have been strengthened by Supreme Court rulings and OPM policy. By contrast, there is reliable information that agencies are denying remote work and telework as a reasonable accomodation otherwise. The most recent example, is the Department of Health and Human Services announcement . Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently started adjusting its policy focusing on impeding, delaying, and denying requests through the implementation of some types of panels. Some of our clients across a few federal agencies have been waiting over nine months for an initial decision on requests.

religious-accommodation-guidance-memo-7-16-25.pdf

Download PDF • 204KB

Leveraging Your Rights Under the OPM Memo

Federal employees can leverage this new OPM guidance to obtain telework, particularly when facing draconian in-person work requirements, even for those hired as remote workers as a condition of employment when hired. The OPM memorandum explicitly states that agencies are encouraged to adopt a "generous approach" in approving religious accommodations, and not just for telework.

We will explain how you can leverage this OPM guidance to obtain telework approval in connection with a religious accommodation. without regard to "how religious you are". It all starts with understanding the following:

Combatting "Minor Inconvenience" Denials: Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, agencies cannot deny a religious accommodation based on minor inconveniences.

Defining Undue Hardship: To legally deny your request, an agency must demonstrate that the accommodation would result in "substantial increased costs" regarding the conduct of its business. This is a very high burden most agencies can never meet. We never met an agency attorney who agreed that any Reasonable Accommodation would impose an "undue hardship" on any agency. Here is the actual trade definitiion of undue hardship in the EEO context: Significant difficulty or expense which, when taken into account with the resources and mission of the agency, may excuse the agency from providing accommodation to an individual with a disability, such that the individual could perform the essential functions of a position.

Bypassing Return-to-Office Mandates: While the January 2025 "Return to In-Person Work" memo restricts remote work generally, this guidance clarifies that telework remains a valid accommodation for religious practices (even more so than for disabilities). Ironically, it places greater priority on accomodation for religious reasons compared to reasons concerning physical disabilities.

Proving Religious Affiliation or Beliefs

A common question regarding federal personnel law and religious observance is what level of proof is required to justify a request.

When a federal employee claims religious discrimination, the law requires them to demonstrate that their belief is sincerely held, but they are not generally required to "prove their faith" in the sense of demonstrating that their belief is part of an organized religion, is shared by others, or is a core tenet of their religious group. Agencies are somewhat reluctant to challenge the claims of a religious beliefs asserted by a federal employee.

Key Requirements for a Religious Claim:

1. The Belief Must Be "Religious":

   • Title VII defines religion very broadly. It protects not only traditional, organized religions (like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) but also sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that occupy in the person's life a place of importance equal to that of traditionally recognized religious views.

   • The belief does not have to be accepted by other members of the person's faith or be a core tenet of that faith to be considered religious.

   • Note: While there are many reported cases involving discrimination claims for major religions, and a growing number for non-traditional faiths like Wicca and Rastafarianism, published, precedent-setting case law specifically involving employment discrimination (Title VII) for Satanism is limited, but the legal principle is clear and would apply to any asserted belief system. An employee claiming religious discrimination based on Satanism, or any other non-traditional religion, would be analyzed under the same framework as any other religion.

1. The Belief Must Be "Sincerely Held":

   • This is the critical test. The employee must show that the religious belief or practice is genuinely important to them. Typically, mere assertions of a belief are sufficient.

   • In most cases, the employee's credible statement about their belief is sufficient.

   • However, if the employer has a bona fide reason to doubt the sincerity of the belief, they may question it. Factors that can lead to a doubt about sincerity might include:

     • The employee acted contrary to the belief in the past.

     • The timing of the claim is suspicious (e.g., claiming a new religious need immediately after an adverse job action).

What does the OPM Guidance Say?

Based on the provided text, the OPM guidance applies to all Executive Branch employees who have "personal religious beliefs requiring accommodations". The document focuses on the existence of a "personal religious belief" rather than mandating strict documentary proof of affiliation with a specific organized group.

Personal Belief Standard: The text emphasizes that accommodations are for the "employee's personal religious observances, practices, or beliefs".

Good-Faith Engagement: Rather than demanding proof of affiliation immediately, the guidance instructs agencies to engage in a "good-faith interactive process" with the employee to explore accommodations.

Note: While the document does not explicitly detail a requirement to provide clergy letters or membership rolls, employees should be prepared to articulate and litigate how their personal beliefs require specific accommodations during the interactive process.

Request Telework for Religious Accommodation (Observances)

One of the most significant aspects of the new guidance is the admission and reinforcement of what we knew, and the law proved, all along: telework is a reasonable accommodation. This is vital for those seeking telework for religious accommodation to observe Sabbaths, holidays, fasting periods, or any observances related to any religion (arguably, even for Satanism). Perhaps more importantly, this admission will likely come up in litigation in future denials of telework requested due to disabilities. Most notably, the Department of Health and Human Services appears to be taking the position, even now, that telework is not a form of Reasonable Accommodation and/or such a request (telework as a Reasonable Accommodation) will be much more closely scrutinized compared to a telework request based on religious grounds, even indicating, "all existing telework RAs will be repealed, so affected workers will need to reapply."

Steps to Request Telework

1. Initiate the Request: You must request to adjust your schedule or location (i.e., remote) based on a religious need. The guidance specifically highlights telework for Sabbath preparation, fasting (to allow for rest/prayer in a private setting), and daily prayer.

2. The Interactive Process: Engage with your supervisor. Agencies are instructed to timely assess technological feasibility and job requirements, but they should view telework as a "low-cost solution".

3. Secure a Written Agreement: The guidance mandates that "an employee must have a written telework agreement" in place. Ensure this document clearly outlines the accommodation and that yopu maintain a current copy and seek annual renewal.

Deadlines and Documentation

The OPM Guidance does not establish a universal application deadline (e.g., "15 days in advance") for submitting these requests. Nor does the guidance prescribe a processing timeline. However, it notes that agencies must document their analysis to ensure compliance with Title VII. Employees should submit requests as early as possible to allow time for the required interactive process.

Appeal Rights and Processes

If your request for accommodation is denied, it is crucial to understand the your appeal rights. While the OPM memo does not outline the specific procedural steps for filing an EEO complaint (such as the 30 calendar-day counseling window), it establishes the legal standard upon which an appeal would be based (the OPM guidance itself and applicable law). HOWEVER, it is important to note that from the notification of a denial, there is a 45 calendar-day time limit for filing an EEO complaint.

Grounds for Challenging a Denial

If an agency denies your telework request, they must adhere to the OPM guidance and the high standard set by Groff v. DeJoy:

Evidence is Required: Denials must be "justified with evidence of significant operational impact".

Substantial Burden: The agency must prove that the accommodation imposes a "substantial burden on operations".

Written Analysis: Agencies should document their analysis for the denial. If they failed to document a "substantial increased cost," the denial may be vulnerable to appeal under Title VII. Many agencies have detailed processing and denial procedures and many even require review by Agency attorneys (OGC) prior to denial.

If you are denied, you should request the written justification and evidence of the "significant operational impact" cited by the agency. There are typically "back end" processes and documentation regarding the agency consideration and analysis of your request.

Conclusion

On it's face, the July 2025 OPM guidance serves as a critical resource for federal employees balancing faith and public service. By strictly defining "undue hardship" and expressly endorsing telework, religious compensatory time off, and maxiflex schedules as valid accommodations, the federal government affirmed its commitment to telework not only for "religious liberty" (any religion, including Satanism), but also telework as an accommodation across the spectrum of reasons why someone may request telework or remote work as a Reasonable Accommodation. This position (again, ironically) is in direct contradiction to the position of many federal agencies concerning telework or remote work as a Reasonable Accommodation that they adopted, if not unwillingly, shortly after Trump's inauguration and almost immediate implementation of Project 2025, which he previously disingenuously disavowed.

As one very high level agency legal executive stated to InformedFED:

"...by constantly issuing conflicting guidance and directives to federal agencies, OPM is making it impossible for agencies to make the right decisions; there will be legal consequences to this ongoing policy whiplash."

If you believe your rights under federal personnel law regarding religious observance have been violated, review the OPM guidance carefully. Remember, agencies are required to prioritize employee needs and engage in a good-faith interactive process.

How InformedFED Can Help

If you are a federal employee who has been denied telework as a reasonable accommodation for any reason—or if you are preparing to submit a request and want to ensure it is handled correctly—InformedFED offers specialized consulting and transactional services to guide you through the complex federal EEO landscape.

Unlike traditional legal firms that require large up-front retainers, InformedFED provides a cost-controlled, task-oriented alternative designed to empower federal employees in an affordable manner. Our team of senior-level credentialed federal labor and employee relations experts can assist you at every stage of the process:

• Initial Strategy & Drafting: If you have not yet filed your request, InformedFED can craft a formal written request that meets administrative requirements, ensuring you clearly articulate your needs and the lack of "undue hardship" on your agency.

• Responding to Denials: If your agency denies your request, our consultants can prepare requests for reconsideration and draft formal responses to agency inquiries, helping you challenge the denial with evidence-based arguments while establishing a basis and evidentiary record for an appeal or EEO complaint..

• EEO Complaint Support: Should the matter escalate, InformedFED supports employees through the entire EEO complaint process. This includes preparing informal and formal claims, assisting with the EEO investigative phase, drafting discovery documents, preparing motions, and responding to agency motions.

• Indirect Representation: We offer "indirect representation," allowing you to retain us for specific tasks or phases—such as writing responses or second opinions—while you represent yourself, significantly reducing costs compared to full legal representation.

Get Started with a Free Consultation . InformedFED offers a free, no-obligation initial consultation to review your specific facts and circumstances to determine if our services are the right fit for your situation.