**EEOC Initiates Legal Action Against Apple for Religious Discrimination**
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched a lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the technology company unlawfully dismissed a long-time employee at a Virginia Apple Store due to religious discrimination. The issue revolves around the employee’s request for flexible scheduling after his conversion to Judaism.
As stated in the EEOC’s press release, the employee, who had been with Apple for 16 years and had consistently received favorable performance assessments, requested to modify his work schedule to honor the Sabbath by not being available on Fridays and Saturdays. However, his newly appointed store manager rejected this request, referencing a company policy that supposedly forbade him from taking both days off. Consequently, the employee felt obligated to work on the Sabbath, which was in conflict with his religious convictions.
The situation intensified when, shortly after his accommodation request, Apple commenced disciplinary actions against the employee for alleged breaches of its grooming policies. The EEOC contends that these disciplinary measures were retaliatory, especially after the employee reminded his supervisor of an upcoming day off for religious observance. Ultimately, the employee was let go in January 2024, with Apple claiming the termination was due to another alleged violation of grooming regulations.
The EEOC asserts that these actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids retaliation against employees who contest discrimination and requires reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, except in cases where such accommodations would impose an undue burden on the employer.
The lawsuit, designated EEOC v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-1637, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Before initiating litigation, the EEOC sought to resolve the issue through its conciliation process but was not successful.
This case highlights the significance of workplace accommodations for religious practices and the legal safeguards provided to employees under federal law.
