OPM Memo Allowing Proselytizing Walks Fine Faith-Inclusion Line

A new memorandum from the US Office of Personnel Management has placed a spotlight on religious expression in federal workplaces. OPM Director Scott Kupor’s guidance affirms federal employees “may seek to ‘persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views’” on the job. Even supervisors, the memo says, can discuss faith with subordinates so long as the effort isn’t “harassing in nature.”

Agencies are warned not to penalize anyone for declining to engage in these conversations and the stated goal is to “vigorously enforce” employees’ rights to freely exercise religion at work, echoing President Donald Trump’s push to eradicate perceived anti-religious bias in government. But as the federal government opens the door to open religious advocacy in the office, it raises urgent questions about where the legal and cultural lines surrounding religious expression should be drawn.

Harassment vs. Free Expression

Federal law has long walked a fine line on religion in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination in federal spaces and mandates reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious practices. It also protects workers from religious harassment—unwelcome conduct based on religion that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive” so as to create a hostile work environment.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces these laws, has made clear that proselytizing at work can cross the line into unlawful harassment if it’s unwelcome and extreme.

By the same token, “a consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.” The law protects earnest expressions of faith as well as employees’ right not to be subjected to religious pressure. The new OPM memo leans heavily on the former protection, but it’s equally important to remember the latter.

Conversations vs. Proselytizing

Where, then, is the line between a permissible chat about religion and unlawful proselytizing? The key distinction is whether the discussion is voluntary.

Casual private conversations about faith pose no legal problem when both parties welcome the exchange. These organic dialogues, conducted respectfully, are exactly the kind of “consensual conversation” the EEOC says is fine. Such interactions can even foster understanding in a religiously varied workforce.

By contrast, coercive or repetitive proselytizing is where trouble brews. Uninvited attempts to convert a colleague, especially after they’ve indicated disinterest, cross a clear line. It isn’t just impolite, it’s religious harassment under Title VII.

The law frames this simply: Employees “who seek to proselytize in the workplace should cease doing so with respect to any individual who indicates that the communications are unwelcome.”

The principle is clear: Sharing one’s faith in a friendly, one-off way is protected; pressuring colleagues with repeated or unwanted evangelizing isn’t. The OPM guidance nods to this limit, conditioning religious outreach on “efforts [that] are not harassing in nature.”

Inclusive, Neutral Workforce

The overriding principle must remain that the federal workplace welcomes employees of any or no faiths, so no one feels like an outsider. In this regard, the OPM memo’s preamble rightly emphasizes inclusivity for people who “practice a religious faith.”

Federal employees who are observant Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, or others should feel free to wear religious attire, display personal religious items, or pray during break times without fear of discrimination. Supporting employees in bringing their whole selves to work, religion included, can strengthen diversity and morale.

But inclusiveness cuts both ways. The workplace must also be comfortable for those who don’t share the dominant faith in the room. Being “welcoming” can’t mean one group’s religious expressions drown out others’ or put implicit pressure on anyone.

A non-Christian or nonreligious employee shouldn’t fear that declining a prayer circle or a discussion about Jesus will brand them as a poor “team player.” The First Amendment, after all, not only protects free exercise of religion but also bars any government endorsement of religion. A federal office brimming with proselytizing could risk giving the impression that the government favors certain beliefs, the most serious First Amendment violation.

In a pluralistic republic, public institutions must remain neutral arbiters that welcome a Bible on one desk, a Quran on another, and no religious display on a third—all with equal respect.

Working 9–⁠5

Another check on this policy will be the basic requirement that work comes first. Religious activities shouldn’t displace job duties. The memo permits things like employee prayer groups, but specifies they should meet on personal time, not during duty hours.

In practice, this means a Bible study or meditation circle at lunchtime is fine, but pausing a staff meeting for group prayer instead of attending to job tasks isn’t. The federal government must ensure that workplace religious expressions don’t interfere with anyone’s ability to do their job.

While the OPM memo asserts that supervisors have the same right as anyone to talk about religion with those they manage, this is a complex line. Agency leaders must set clear expectations; proselytizing can never factor into workplace evaluations, and managers must be scrupulous in avoiding any semblance of religious favoritism or coercion.

Neutrality and Inclusion

Culturally and politically, OPM’s new guidance arrives at a fraught moment. It amplifies a narrative popular in some circles that religious employees—particularly Christians—have been marginalized in secular bureaucratic culture, and that government should swing the pendulum back toward open faith in the workplace.

Advocates applaud the memo as affirming that public servants don’t forfeit their First Amendment rights when they go to work. Indeed, policies such as allowing flexible schedules for prayer or permitting religious attire send a message that all faiths are valued in our government offices. However, critics justly worry about implementation. This initiative could “prioritize the promotion of Christianity in the workplace at the expense of the rights of all federal workers, regardless of their faith traditions.” The current policy’s broad encouragement of proselytizing is a departure that will need to be managed delicately to avoid undermining the very freedom it intends to champion.

Freedom Either Way

As the federal government navigates this expansion of religious expression on the job, success will hinge on a balanced approach. Federal employees should feel free to bring their faith to work. These freedoms enrich our public institutions and affirm the core American value of pluralism.

At the same time, every employee also has the right to work in an environment free from religious pressure or discrimination. The OPM memo invokes our “historic and robust” tradition of religious liberty, and rightly so. But that tradition is a two-way street. Just as a person of faith must be free to share their beliefs, their colleagues must be equally free to decline the conversation or share a different view—without fear of reprisal or ostracism.

Respect is the currency that will make this policy workable: respect by religious employees for the boundaries of others’ comfort, and respect by agencies for sincere religious needs.

A Personal Note

Early in my career as a law clerk for Judge Leonard Garth, I often prayed mincha, or afternoon prayers, in a quiet corner after long days.

One evening, while I was praying alone, the judge, upset about a memo, stormed in, saw me, and silently walked away. Later, I found a note asking me to see him when I was “finished.” I was terrified, but he was kind. That moment taught me that employees should never have to hide their faith at work, so long as it’s personal and respectful.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Michael Broyde is law professor at Emory University and the Berman Projects Director in Emory’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines