EEOC Sues Apple Over Alleged Firing of Jewish Employee Who Observed the Sabbath

By: Fern Sidman

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched a high-profile legal battle against Apple, accusing the technology giant of religious discrimination and retaliation against a Jewish employee at its Reston, Virginia, retail store. The case, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the caption EEOC v. Apple, Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-1637), centers on claims that Apple refused to accommodate the man’s Sabbath observance and ultimately terminated him in January 2024.

According to a report that appeared on Tuesday at VIN News, the lawsuit represents one of the most significant clashes between religious liberty protections and corporate scheduling practices in recent years, with potential implications far beyond Apple’s famed glass storefronts.

The employee, whose name has not been disclosed in public filings, worked for Apple for 16 years, making him one of the longest-serving members of the Reston store staff. VIN News reported that his conversion to Judaism in 2023 became a turning point in his professional trajectory. Upon adopting Orthodox observance, he asked his new store manager to excuse him from work on Fridays and Saturdays so that he could fully observe the Jewish Sabbath.

Apple allegedly denied the request, citing uniform scheduling policies that it claimed applied to all employees. The complaint, however, underscores that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for religious observances unless doing so creates an “undue hardship” on the business.

Shortly after his request was denied, the longtime employee began facing discipline. The VIN News report noted that Apple cited him for grooming violations, a move that attorneys now argue was pretextual and retaliatory. Matters came to a head in January 2024, when Apple terminated his employment—mere days after he renewed his plea for accommodation.

The EEOC’s public statements make clear the gravity with which the agency views the case. “Employees should not have to violate their religious beliefs to keep their jobs,” said Debra Lawrence, Regional Attorney for the EEOC, in a statement quoted in the VIN News report.

The lawsuit contends that Apple’s actions constituted a direct violation of Title VII, which not only prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion but also bars retaliation against employees who request accommodations. By disciplining and ultimately firing the employee, the EEOC alleges, Apple punished him for exercising his federally protected rights.

The VIN News report highlighted that the lawsuit follows unsuccessful attempts at mediation and settlement between the EEOC and Apple. Typically, the EEOC prefers to resolve disputes through conciliation before escalating matters to court. That negotiations collapsed in this case suggests, according to legal experts, that the parties’ positions were irreconcilable.

Now, with the lawsuit filed in federal court, the stakes are far higher. If Apple loses, it could face not only financial damages but also injunctive relief requiring the company to change its policies on scheduling, religious accommodation, and retaliation prevention.

As of press time, Apple has not publicly commented on the litigation. Requests for statements from VIN News reporters went unanswered, though Apple has historically positioned itself as a progressive company on issues of diversity and inclusion.

This silence has only intensified scrutiny. How could a corporation that has branded itself as a champion of personal freedom and equity be accused of failing to protect a fundamental religious right enshrined in federal law?

The lawsuit arrives at a time when courts and regulators are increasingly attentive to the boundaries between corporate operations and religious rights. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “undue hardship” in religious accommodation cases, raising the bar for employers who deny accommodations on the grounds of inconvenience or cost.

VIN News reported that this precedent could loom large in EEOC v. Apple. For decades, employers argued that even modest disruptions constituted an undue hardship. But recent rulings have narrowed that interpretation, requiring businesses to demonstrate that accommodating religious observance would cause significant difficulty or expense.

Applied to the Reston case, this standard may work against Apple, which is unlikely to argue credibly that adjusting one employee’s Friday and Saturday shifts would cripple operations in a store staffed by dozens.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the sanctity of the Jewish Sabbath, which requires observant Jews to refrain from work and commerce from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. The report at VIN News explained that this observance is not merely a preference but a core religious commandment, non-negotiable for Orthodox Jews.

The EEOC complaint highlights that Apple’s refusal forced the employee into an impossible bind: choose between livelihood and faith. Legal analysts say such scenarios are precisely what Title VII was designed to prevent.

The case is not limited to accommodation alone. VIN News reported that the EEOC is equally focused on claims of retaliation. The timing of the employee’s discipline and termination—coming immediately after renewed requests for Sabbath accommodation—raises red flags.

Retaliation cases often hinge on evidence of suspicious timing, disparate treatment, or pretextual justifications. In this instance, grooming violations cited against a 16-year veteran may strike jurors as selective enforcement, especially when juxtaposed with his prior record of service.

Jewish advocacy groups have been quick to seize on the case as emblematic of a larger struggle for religious freedom in the workplace. The report at VIN News noted that several Orthodox organizations have pledged to monitor proceedings closely, viewing them as a litmus test for the strength of federal protections.

“This is not just about one man in Virginia,” said one communal leader. “It’s about whether observant Jews, or any religious people, can bring their whole selves to work without fear of reprisal.”

The case is expected to move forward in the coming months with pretrial motions and potential discovery into Apple’s internal policies, scheduling records, and disciplinary histories. VIN News reported that the court could also hear testimony from managers, co-workers, and experts on religious accommodation.

If the EEOC prevails, remedies could include back pay, compensatory damages, and an order requiring Apple to implement more robust religious accommodation policies across its U.S. operations. Conversely, if Apple successfully defends itself, it could set a precedent narrowing the scope of religious rights in corporate workplaces.

Ultimately, the lawsuit against Apple is about far more than one employee’s Sabbath observance. It is about the enduring tension between America’s most powerful corporations and the civil rights protections that safeguard its workers.

The VIN News report emphasized that for Apple, which touts a brand synonymous with innovation and inclusivity, the optics of fighting against a Jewish employee’s right to observe the Sabbath could prove damaging, whatever the legal outcome.

As the case proceeds, it will test not only the strength of federal statutes like Title VII but also the willingness of corporations to align their public values with their internal practices.

In the words of Debra Lawrence, as cited in the VIN News report: “No one should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. That is not only the law; it is the principle of a free society.”