The Fifth Circuit’s 2025 decision in Carter v. Southwest Airlines shapes how Title VII religious discrimination claims are litigated—offering a framework for plaintiffs and concrete defenses for emp
The following does not constitute legal advice (always talk to a lawyer, even if you are a lawyer!) but sometimes it’s helpful to practically evaluate how a decision will affect people, and what strategies you can apply, or what strategies will be applied in situations like this.
If you work or do business in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, your rights—and responsibilities—around religion in the workplace are shaped by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court hears appeals from federal trial courts in all three states and its rulings set the standard for how Title VII religious discrimination cases are handled in the region.
In its May 8, 2025 ruling in Carter v. Southwest Airlines, the Fifth Circuit formally adopted a post-Groff analytical framework for religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It laid out three distinct claim categories: (1) belief-based intentional discrimination, (2) practice-based intentional discrimination, and (3) failure-to-accommodate religious practices. The ruling also raised the evidentiary bar for employers attempting to invoke the “undue hardship” defense, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).
The opinion is both a doctrinal clarification and a practical guide for how courts in the Fifth Circuit will adjudicate Title VII religious claims—offering important takeaways for both plaintiffs and employers.
Title VII Religious Discrimination: Three Claims, Three Tracks
Belief-Based Intentional Discrimination
Definition: Discrimination solely due to the employee’s religious belief (e.g., being a pro-life Christian).
Undue Hardship Defense Not Allowed: Employers may not claim that the belief causes operational issues.
Plaintiff Tips:
Highlight direct statements or conduct showing hostility to religious beliefs themselves.
Identify similarly situated employees who were not treated adversely despite holding different (non-religious) views.
Separate belief from conduct—focus on evidence that the belief alone triggered the adverse action.
Practice-Based Intentional Discrimination
Definition: Discrimination based on religiously motivated conduct (e.g., social media posts, refusal to work on holy days).
Undue Hardship Defense Applies: Employer must show substantial costs tied to accommodating the practice.
Plaintiff Tips:
Prove that the religious conduct was sincerely held and directly tied to faith.
Challenge the employer’s hardship claim with facts (e.g., the practice was minimally disruptive or inconsistently enforced).
Use comparators to show non-religious conduct violations were treated more leniently.
Failure-to-Accommodate
Definition: Employer did not adjust workplace policies to allow religious observance.
Undue Hardship Defense Applies (under Groff): Must be a substantial cost—not minimal or speculative.
Plaintiff Tips:
Show that the employer failed to even consider accommodations or refused to engage in a dialogue.
Propose specific accommodations that would not have imposed substantial burdens.
If the employer cites coworker “morale” or “discomfort,” emphasize Groff’s bar on subjective bias as a defense.
Post-Groff Employer Defense Strategies
For Practice-Based and Accommodation Claims:
Demonstrate with specificity how the accommodation would impose substantial cost or operational harm.
Provide examples (e.g., disruption to shift coverage, reduced safety, increased HR workload).
Show uniform enforcement of policies regardless of religious content.
For Belief-Based Claims:
Focus defense on job performance or misconduct, not the belief itself.
Show consistency in how similarly situated employees with the same belief were treated.
Maintain documentation that adverse actions were tied to policy violations, not ideology.
Universal Practices for Risk Reduction:
Train managers and HR teams on how to conduct interactive accommodation processes.
Ensure all disciplinary actions are grounded in well-documented policy violations.
Regularly review and update policies to remain viewpoint-neutral and compliant with Title VII.
What to Expect
Going forward, plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit will need to clearly distinguish whether their claim is rooted in belief or practice and prepare evidence accordingly. Meanwhile, employers must meet a higher bar to invoke the undue hardship defense. Mere speculation or employee discomfort will no longer suffice.
In Carter’s case, the Fifth Circuit reversed her belief-based claim due to lack of direct evidence, but upheld her practice-based claim because Southwest failed to show a substantial burden. Employers should expect increased scrutiny of their internal handling of religious expression and clearer judicial differentiation between belief and conduct.
DISCLAIMER: This is intended to provide some general framework information does not constitute legal advice – talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction about your situation.