Apple Faces EEOC Lawsuit Over Alleged Religious Discrimination in Virginia

By Michael Peabody –

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that its Reston, Virginia retail store denied a Jewish employee’s request for Sabbath accommodation and then fired him in retaliation after he raised internal complaints. The federal suit, filed on September 30, 2025, argues that Apple violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate religious practices unless doing so imposes an undue hardship.
EEOC news release, 2025-09-30

Tyler Steele, an Apple employee since 2007, converted to Judaism in 2023 and requested that he not be scheduled to work Friday evenings and Saturdays in observance of the Jewish Sabbath. The EEOC claims that a new store manager denied the request and disciplined Steele, ultimately terminating his employment in January 2024. Apple has not yet issued a public response, and it remains unclear whether the company followed appropriate procedures in this instance. These are unproven allegations, and this is simply a case under review, not a final determination of wrongdoing.

The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction to prevent future violations. The agency is representing the federal government in the litigation; no private attorney has been listed for Steele. Because the facts closely resemble the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, which clarified that employers must demonstrate a substantial hardship to deny religious accommodations, legal observers note the case may settle before reaching trial.

Commentary

In full disclosure, this author wrote an amicus brief in Groff v. DeJoy, and this case lands squarely in the new legal terrain laid out by the Supreme Court. Gone are the days when employers could cite minor inconvenience to deny religious accommodation. Now they must demonstrate concrete, measurable hardship, such as significant costs or operational disruption.

If Apple’s local manager denied the request without meaningfully exploring alternatives, and if internal policies weren’t applied or enforced uniformly, the company could be on shaky legal ground. But these cases rarely hinge on surface-level claims. They are fact-specific and document-dependent. Courts will be looking at emails, shift schedules, HR logs, and prior accommodations to determine what actually happened.

Retaliation: Defensible with the Right Evidence

Retaliation claims are a central feature of many EEOC lawsuits. But they’re not unbeatable. Employers have several avenues to defend such claims, especially when records are clean and decisions were made prior to or independently of a complaint. Potential defenses include:

• Performance-Based Termination: If the employee had a documented pattern of performance issues, unrelated to the accommodation request, that evidence can support a lawful termination.

• Timing Plus Documentation: Even if the firing occurred shortly after the complaint, employers can defend themselves if documentation shows the decision was already in progress.

• Consistent Enforcement: If the policy used to discipline the employee was enforced equally among all staff, and not uniquely against the complainant, that supports a non-retaliatory motive.

• Complaint Was Addressed Properly: Showing that the employee’s religious complaint was logged, evaluated, and considered, regardless of the outcome, helps rebut the claim that it was ignored or punished.

Still, none of this works without proper recordkeeping. In employment litigation, “show your work” isn’t a suggestion, it’s a survival tactic.

Why Employers Need to Pay Attention

Many religious liberty commentaries tend to align exclusively with the employee’s perspective, and understandably so. The right to worship, observe, and practice is a foundational protection. But real-life employment decisions are rarely so simple. Employees may have rights, but employers have operations to run, schedules to fill, and customers to serve. The best legal commentary doesn’t ignore either side of that equation.

Here’s our position: The best way to avoid these lawsuits is to do the right thing. That means making every effort to accommodate sincerely held beliefs unless there’s a truly substantial reason not to. Who wins a legal battle? Usually, the lawyers. Nobody likes litigation, especially the people stuck in it.

The challenge is that doing the right thing isn’t always obvious. Competing interests, inflexible scheduling systems, and uneven training across regions all make these situations complex. And in large companies, regional managers might not always act consistently with corporate policy. That’s why prevention, in the form of training, escalation procedures, and documentation, is far better than the expense and stress of fighting it out in court.

Practice Pointers for Employers

1. Centralize High-Risk Decisions
   Don’t leave accommodation denials or post-complaint disciplinary actions solely to regional discretion. Legal, HR, or a centralized review board should weigh in.

2. Keep Clear, Contemporaneous Records
   Log all accommodation requests, how they were evaluated, who was consulted, and what was decided. Document any performance or conduct issues well in advance of termination.

3. Train Your Front Line
   Managers should be trained not just on what the law says, but on how to handle conversations about faith, belief, and religious practice with sensitivity and legality.

4. Conduct a Retaliation Check Before Terminating
   Before terminating anyone who has made a protected request, ask: Is the reason clearly documented? Was it in motion before the complaint? Has this policy been applied the same way to others?

5. Update Policies Post-Groff
   If your handbook still defines “undue hardship” as anything more than minimal burden, it’s outdated. The Supreme Court raised the bar. Your policies need to catch up.

Conclusion

This case, like many before it, may never go to trial. It may quietly resolve through settlement or mediation. But it serves as a public reminder: accommodation law is no longer a low bar for employers to clear. Especially in high-sensitivity areas like religious practice, the law now expects effort, flexibility, and a willingness to work toward solutions.

If you’re navigating this space, don’t assume the answer. Don’t guess. And don’t wing it. Talk to counsel early, document often, and act deliberately.