Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant pays $47K to resolve alleged religious discrimination; applicant with long skirt rejected, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Pamela Wolf, J.D.

The general manager purportedly confirmed the restaurant was hiring but then mocked the candidate’s religious beliefs.

Pursuant to a two-year consent decree, BWW Resources, LLC, dba Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants, agreed to pay $47,500 to settle allegations that it violated Title VII when it refused to consider a server job candidate who wore long skirts in public because of her sincerely held religious beliefs. She asked the general manager of Buffalo Wild Wings’ Douglasville, Georgia, location about a job opening. The general manager confirmed the restaurant was hiring, but then mocked the candidate’s religious beliefs, according to the EEOC. After she applied for a server position, the restaurant failed to interview her or otherwise contact her about the open position. Shortly after, an assistant manager said the restaurant would not hire the applicant because it was unusual for servers to wear long skirts in a sports bar. The location did not hire the applicant and hired five servers within two months of her application, according to the federal agency’s lawsuit.

In addition to the monetary relief for the applicant, the consent decree requires BWW Resources to provide specialized training to managers, supervisors and HR personnel for the Douglasville location; post a notice informing employees of the settlement and of their rights against discrimination; and provide the EEOC with periodic reports about requests for religious accommodations from future job applicants, as well as employee complaints of religious discrimination or retaliation.

Reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs. According to the EEOC’s fact sheet on religious accommodations, employers cannot refuse to hire, terminate, or otherwise discriminate as to any term or condition of employment because someone may need a religious accommodation that could be provided without undue hardship.

What is an undue hardship? It is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business, taking into account all relevant factors in the case, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer, according to the EEOC.

An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is:

• Costly,

• Compromises workplace safety,

• Decreases workplace efficiency,

• Infringes on the rights of other employees, or

• Requires other employees to unwillingly do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Notably, coworker objections based on hostility to religion or customer fears or prejudices are not an undue hardship.

“Job applicants have the right to pursue employment without fear of compromising their religious practices, so long as those practices do not cause an undue hardship on prospective employers,” explained EEOC District Director Darrell Graham. “The EEOC remains committed to protecting and enforcing that right.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division; the case is No. 4:23-CV-00167-CDL.

Companies: BWW Resources, LLC; Buffalo Wild Wings

News: AgencyNews Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination RemediesDamages