It's not that he was fired directly "because he was religious", exactly; it's about whether Yelp discriminated against him by violating the following (from http

It's not that he was fired directly "because he was religious", exactly; it's about whether Yelp discriminated against him by violating the following (from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm): > The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. IANAL, but I believe there is a difference between a person being unavailable due to golfing vs. due to a religious belief, since a person's religious belief is a protected category whereas their sporting activities are not. If it was company policy to shave one's head, but an employee's religion prohibited them from doing so, the company would be discriminating against that person even if they required everyone to shave their heads (caveat: assuming a shaved head was not actually important to the employer's business). Otherwise, a company could "uniformly" apply a rule that "just so happens" to only apply to a specific religion (or gender, or any other protected category), and use that to effectively ban those who fall under that category. Now, in this specific case, I don't know if he'll be able to show that supporting his beliefs wouldn't have caused Yelp "more than a minimal burden", but I think that's what he's going after.