The CRDA has agreed to provide this space for the (not yet federally recognized) Civil Rights Division Employee Union, to share information for current and former federal employees.  

If you have a question not answered on this page, please reach out to [email protected]. 

Introduction

CRT union leadership has received numerous questions from members who are concerned about their rights, their ability to push back against work directives that may violate the law, etc. In response, we formed a research subcommittee to investigate common questions posed by members. Below are responses to the most common questions we received. Those questions are:

  1. ​What are my religious accommodation rights, including sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs?
  2. What are my whistleblower rights?
  3. Will I violate the rules of professional responsibility if my client asks me to take action based on my client's discriminatory animus toward marginalized groups?
  4. What if my client asks me to take action that I believe could endanger the health and/or safety of third-parties?

Thank you to the union's Research Subcommittee for your work!

Last updated: 5/16/2025

Know Your Rights - Religious Accommodations For Work That Implicates Your Sincerely Held Beliefs

​Employees have the right to request a job accommodation based on religion, which includes sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs. We put together the general FAQs below since we know this issue is arising for some of our members. Note that these FAQs compile information from public sources to answer common questions, but they are not legal advice. Also, although the FAQs focus on employees, job applicants have similar rights.

  1. What does religion mean in the context of a job accommodation? The answer is very broad! Religion protections include a person’s beliefs, practices, or observances, even if they are unique, uncommon, new, not part of a formal church or sect, or seem illogical or unreasonable to others. Religious beliefs need not be based on an organized religion, nor does the employee need to have a text (e.g., a bible) describing the religion. Religious protections even include the lack of religion, like atheism. At its core, the definition involves a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs, which include moral or ethical beliefs.
  2. What is a work-related religious accommodation? It is a change to an employee’s job that will allow the person to comply with their religious beliefs or complete required practices or observances.
  3. What are some examples of religious accommodations? Some examples include scheduling changes, voluntary shift substitutions, job or task reassignments, and transfers. It can also include modifications to workplace practices, policies, or procedures.
  4. Must an employer provide a religious accommodation in every circumstance? No. Any employer can reject a religious accommodation if it would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer, taking into account all relevant factors. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all question. For example, an accommodation that might be an undue hardship for a small employer might not be for a larger employer (like the federal government) because of the difference in their resources. If an employer claims undue hardship based on cost, the employer must show substantial increased costs in the context of its particular business. Also, the employer cannot merely make speculative claims.
  5. Can an employer take into account a religious accomodation’s impact on other employees? Sometimes. The Supreme Court and lower courts have stated that evidence of impact on coworkers “is off the table for consideration” unless the impacts place a substantial strain on the employer's business. Further, even if the impact on coworkers places a substantial strain on the employer's business, that impact is not considered “undue” if the impact is based on religious bias or animosity.
  6. How does a person request religious work accommodations? There are no magic words that an employee must say. However, an employee must let their employer know there’s a need for an accommodation based on a conflict between their religious belief or practice and the work they’re asked to do for the employer. Although verbal requests are allowed, employees may want to consider making a written request and keeping a hard or electronic record of their request, such as by printing or emailing it. Regardless of how the request is made, it can initiate an interactive process so the employer and the employee can discuss the issue and the possible accommodations. Notably, the interactive process is not required for religious accommodations like it is for those based on disability. Nevertheless, if an employer rejects the employee’s proposed religious accommodation, the employer must propose an alternative.
  7. What types of questions might an employer ask when evaluating a religious accommodation request? Each office may have a different practice, but it is common for the employer to ask the employee to: (1) describe the nature of their sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, that conflicts with what the employer has asked of the employee, and (2) suggest accommodation(s) that would meet the employee’s needs. The employee does not need to show documentation from a religious entity or a practitioner for proof. Also, unlike disability-based accommodations, religious accommodations can be for core job duties.
  8. How do federal employees file a complaint if their agency rejects a religious accommodation request? Like with any discrimination issue for federal employees, the answer depends on the facts. The options include one of the following (federal employees cannot pursue more than one of the below):
    • contacting an EEO Counselor (or the Civil Rights Center) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614 within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory event (which often means the religious accommodation denial),
    • filing an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) within 30 days of an adverse action, as explained in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3, if the MSPB has jurisdiction over the issue; or
    • filing a grievance with the employee’s union per the collective bargaining agreement (as applicable).
    • NOTE: The filing timelines are strict so people should not delay or assume they can get an extension.
  9. Where can people get public information about religious accommodations? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the agency that enforces religious discrimination protections. It has religious discrimination FAQs, guidance, and general information. To get a sense of what questions an employer might ask, you can also view the EEOC’s religious accommodation request form it uses for its own employees. The Department of Labor also has FAQs on religious discrimination.
  10. What do courts say about religious accommodations at work? In 2023, the Supreme Court expanded religious accommodations rights in a case called Groff v. Dejoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023). Since then, lower courts have issued helpful opinions, including in Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc., 113 F.4th 9 (1st Cir. 2024) (determining, among other things, that an employee properly pled her sincerely held belief that taking the Covid-19 vaccine violated her religious views, and that an employer’s claim of undue hardship was a factual question not appropriate for a motion to dismiss); Amos v. Lampo Group, No. 24-5011 (6th Cir. 2024) (an employee’s implementation of Covid-19 precautions, such as social distancing, is protected conduct under religious nonconformity because the conduct was based on employee’s religious beliefs); Does 1-11 v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Colorado, 100 F.4th 1251 (10th Cir. 2024) (when evaluating accommodation requests, a government employer’s rejection of unestablished religions, and the intrusive inquiry into employee religions, was unconstitutional); and Hebrew v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 80 F.4th 717 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting a prison’s attempt to dismiss a religious discrimination case when the prison alleged that providing a reasonable accommodation to a prison guard’s hair length would cause safety concerns).

Whistleblowing Resources for CRT Employees

​The following resources are intended to help you quickly get up to speed on whistleblowing options so you can more easily decide if you want or need to disclose wrongdoing.

Federal employees have multiple options for disclosing wrongdoing, including to:

  • Supervisors or someone in management;
  • DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG);
  • The Office of Special Counsel (OSC);
  • Congress; or
  • The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Whistleblowing Options

Supervisors or someone in management. You can flag potential wrongdoing to anyone who serves in a supervisory capacity. You may consider doing so in writing to create documentation of your disclosure.
 
Once you’ve made a protected disclosure, the Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits retaliation. This means it is unlawful for agencies to take or threaten a personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed wrongdoing. Personnel actions include a poor performance review, reassignment, demotion, suspension, or termination.
 
In addition, the law prohibits retaliation for:
  • Filing an appeal, complaint, or grievance;
  • Helping someone else file or testifying on that person's behalf;
  • Cooperating with or disclosing information to OIG or OSC; or
  • Refusing to obey an unlawful order.
Employees who disclose information prohibited by law or executive order are protected from retaliation only if the disclosure is made to OIG or OSC.

DOJ’s OIG. This website provides information on whistleblower rights and protections and how to make protected disclosures to OIG. Such disclosures can include:
  • Violation of a law, rule, or regulation;
  • Gross mismanagement;
  • A gross waste of funds;
  • An abuse of authority; and/or
  • A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
OIG operates a hotline that allows confidential disclosures. If you provide your identity, OIG is prohibited from disclosing it unless they determine that disclosure is unavoidable or compelled by court order. There are no time limits on how long an OIG investigation can take.
 
The current Inspector General is Michael E. Horowitz. He was not included in the roughly 17 IGs President Trump fired after taking office in January.
 
OSC. This website provides information on how to report wrongdoing to OSC, an independent federal agency that enforces the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Reports to OSC can include:
  • Violation of a law, rule, or regulation;
  • Gross mismanagement;
  • A gross waste of funds;
  • An abuse of authority;
  • A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; and/or
  • Censorship related to research, analysis, or technical information.
These disclosures may overlap with protected disclosures to OIG, but are also distinct. For example, OSC accepts an additional category of wrongdoing (censorship), has different confidentiality requirements, and imposes a deadline to complete the investigation.
Generally, you must disclose your identity to OSC. (Anonymous complaints are forwarded to the agency’s OIG.) However, OSC states that it will not reveal your identity without your consent, except in rare cases where there is an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of a criminal law. Even then, OSC says it will attempt to contact you first.
According to its website, OSC refers all allegations to the agency head (e.g., for DOJ it would be the Attorney General) to investigate. Investigations must be completed within 60 days (although an agency’s requests for extensions can be granted). Once OSC receives the agency’s report on its investigation, the whistleblower is given an opportunity to review and comment on it. The Special Counsel then determines if the investigation contains all required information and its findings are reasonable. If so, the Special Counsel forwards the report to the President and any congressional committees responsible for oversight. The Special Counsel also makes the report available online.
President Trump fired Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger in February 2025. Dellinger sued him over it, leading quickly to his reinstatement. But once a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit allowed his firing to proceed while the district court assessed the merits, Dellinger dropped his lawsuit. As of mid-April 2025, OSC is led by acting head Jamieson Greer (who also serves as US Trade Representative). Under its new leadership, OSC recently dismissed around 2,000 complaints filed by fired federal probationary workers.
Senate Democrats. Use this link to file a whistleblower complaint, which Senate Democrats established in early February 2025. It is not entirely clear what the process will look like after filing a complaint, but it may lead Senate Committees to issue demand letters, preserve public records, conduct public hearings, and pursue legal action where necessary.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB is an independent agency intended to protect federal employees against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices by adjudicating employee appeals over which the Board has jurisdiction. Use this link to learn more about the appeal process.

Resources on Whistleblowing Rights

Legal Professional Responsibility Rules Barring Attorneys From Committing Harassment or Discrimination

​Many states, including California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, have adopted a variation of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) that prohibits lawyers from committing harassment or discrimination in the practice of law. The Rule states that it is:

[P]rofessional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

You may want to confirm whether a variation of Model Rule 8.4(g) applies to your law license. If it does, some questions that you might want to consider include:

  • Will you violate the rule if your “client” asks you to take certain actions based on the client’s discriminatory animus? For example, if your client directs you to file a lawsuit because of the client’s discriminatory animus toward one of the groups identified in the rule, will you violate this rule if you follow that direction?​
  • To comply with the rule must you refrain from using certain language, such as refraining from misgendering transgender people?
    • Even in states where the rules cover sex but not gender identity, could misgendering people be considered a type of sex discrimination? See, e.g., Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020).
  • If a lawyer licensed in a state that has adopted a variation of Model Rule 8.4(g) harasses or discriminates against a person on the basis of one of the protected categories, has that lawyer violated the Rule?

If the state(s) where you are licensed have not adopted a variation of Model Rule 8.4(g), you may want to confirm whether those states consider it misconduct to engage in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The comments to those rules often indicate that discriminatory conduct is viewed as violating that rule.

Resources:

Objections to Directives Based on Third-Party Health & Safety Concerns

Some employees are concerned that they may be directed to take actions that they believe could endanger the health and/or safety of third-parties. Hypothetical circumstances will be extremely fact-dependent, but if DOJ directs you to take such an action, consider reviewing the below resources from private organizations and governmental groups to determine potential responses:
  • Rules of Professional Responsibility: Attorneys may consider whether rules of professional responsibility would prohibit an attorney from following a directive.
    • ABA Model Rule 3.1 prohibits taking a legal position for which an attorney does not have a good faith basis. If attorneys perceive DOJ directives to both endanger third-parties and require the attorney to argue in bad-faith the directive is not harmful, consider whether this violates Rule 3.1.
    • ABA Model Rule 3.3 prohibits making false statements of law or fact, or otherwise offering evidence that an attorney knows to be false. Similarly, attorneys may query whether a directive will require the attorney to falsely state the directive is harmless.
    • For more information attorneys could review Protect Democracy’s Explainer: Resign or Be Fired? and their DOJ Attorney Manual, namely the “Rules of Professional Responsibility” and “Navigating Ethical Concerns” sections, starting at page 16.
  • The union shared materials in its April 11, 2025 newsletter explaining religious accommodations, including changing job assignments due to sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs. Consider whether a directive that may cause third-party harm warrants religious accommodation. Public information can be found at:
  • Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Complaints: The OSC is empowered to investigate violations of law, abuses of authority, and other protected matters. Review Your Rights as a Whistleblower.
  • Other Resources to Review