Abstract
Excerpted From: Carolyn L. Wheeler, “Impact of Contemporary ‘Culture Wars’ on Religious Discrimination Claims and Defenses,” 39 ABA J. Lab. & Emp. L. 1 (2026) Full Document
Brad Amos, a video editor, joined Lampo Group in 2019 believing it aligned with his Christian values, especially as its head, Dave Ramsey, promoted a family-friendly and non-traditional workplace. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Ramsey to declare that prayer was the only preventive measure against infection, criticizing those who took other precautions as lacking faith. Amos, adhering to his belief in the “golden rule” of not harming others, faced mockery for practicing social distancing and wearing a mask, ultimately leading to his termination. Amos sued for religious discrimination under Title VII, but the district court dismissed his claims, asserting that his beliefs weren’t religious and that Title VII protects only beliefs, not conduct.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, stating Amos had sufficiently claimed religious discrimination based on “religious nonconformity,” as his views diverged from his employer’s. The court emphasized that discrimination against religiously motivated conduct is foundational to Title VII claims, affirming that Amos’s beliefs were indeed plausible and religiously rooted.
The case illustrates the contemporary “culture wars” manifesting within workplace religious conflicts, influenced by significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic, the murder of George Floyd, and landmark Supreme Court rulings. Current workplace issues revolve around vaccine mandates, reproductive rights, diversity initiatives, and LGBTQ+ rights, making claims for religious discrimination increasingly relevant.
This article aims to detail how courts have historically navigated conflicts between employees’ religious freedoms and employer policies. With the Supreme Court’s recent clarification in Groff v. DeJoy on assessing religious accommodations and their potential burden on employers, the article will explore implications for ongoing cases.
Part I will discuss Title VII’s accommodation requirements, defining religion, procedural needs for accommodations, and employer standards for hardship claims. Part II will examine how these principles apply to contemporary issues like vaccination requirements, harassment policies regarding abortion discussions, and diversity training for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Contemporary disputes over gender identity, systemic racism, reproductive rights, and public health challenges pose significant demands on employers, necessitating careful consideration of the religious beliefs of all employees. Title VII’s broad interpretation of religion, along with the clarified standards from Groff, seeks to balance the rights and protections for all individuals in the workplace.
Carolyn L. Wheeler is a partner at Katz Banks Kumin and a former Assistant General Counsel in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Office of General Counsel, Appellate Services Division.
