Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
Chanta Chalmers contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to her employer, Tulon Co. (“Tulon”), on her claim that Tulon failed to accommodate her religious conduct. Because Chal-mers provided Tulon with no notice of her need to engage in this conduct and because, in any event, this conduct was not susceptible to accommodation, we affirm.
I.
The parties do not dispute the material facts. In stating the facts here, we draw most of them from Chalmers’ complaint, J.A. 4-9, and deposition testimony, J.A. 50-90 and 98-107. Only when Chalmers did not testify to a fact do we rely on other sworn testimony.1
Chalmers worked for Tulon from October 1988 until September 21, 1993. J.A. 5. Tu-lon’s business involves the manufacturing of drill bits and routers used in the printed circuit board industry. J.A. 42. Tulon maintains a number of service centers throughout the United States, including a center in Richmond, Virginia where Chalmers worked. Id. During Chalmers’ years at Tulon, the Richmond center employed from six to fifteen employees. J.A 52-53, 56-57.
Chalmers began her employment as a re-point operator, J.A. 5, 53, and, after three years, was promoted to supervisor. J.A. 5, 55, 62. During her employment with Tulon, although Chalmers had some issues with her job training, she believed Tulon treated her fairly with respect to compensation, benefits, and job assignments. J.A. 54-55, 57-59. Prior to her discharge, Chalmers never felt anyone at the company discriminated against her, J.A. 55, 58, or harassed her because of her religious beliefs or practices. J.A. 65.
As repoint supervisor, Chalmers was the only management-level employee working regularly at the Richmond center. J.A. 43. Chalmers’ immediate supervisor, Richard C. LaMantia, was in charge of sales throughout the eastern part of the United States but, according to Chalmers, visited Richmond only a few days every few months. J.A. 51-52. At all other times, Chalmers was responsible for the operation of the Richmond center. J.A 43. Chalmers recognized that it was part of her supervisory responsibility to promote harmony in the workplace and set an example for her subordinates. J.A. 64.
Chalmers has been a Baptist all of her life, and in June 1984 became an evangelical Christian. J.A. 50. At that time, she accepted Christ as her personal savior and determined to go forth and do work for him. Id. As an evangelical Christian, Chalmers believes she should share the gospel and looks for opportunities to do so. J.A. 105.
Chalmers felt that LaMantia respected her, generally refraining from using profanity around her, while around other employees who did not care, “he would say whatever he wanted to say.” J.A. 65. LaMantia had taken Chalmers and her husband to dinner once and she felt that she and LaMantia had a “personal relationship” and that she could talk to him. J.A. 71. Chalmers stated that “in the past we have talked about God.” Id. Chalmers further testified that “starting off’ she and LaMantia had discussed religion about “everytime he came to the service [1015]*1015center :... maybe every three months” but “then, towards the end maybe not as frequently.” J.A. 107. LaMantia never discouraged these conversations, expressed discomfort with them, or indicated that they were improper. J.A. 107. In one of these conversations, LaMantia told Chalmers that three people had approached him about accepting Christ. JA. 72.
Two or three years after this conversation, id., Chalmers “knew it was time for' [LaMan-tia] to accept God.” J.A. 66. She believed LaMantia had told customers information about the turnaround time for a job when he knew that information was not true. J.A. 66; J.A. 70. Chalmers testified that she was “led by the Lord” to write LaMantia and tell him “there were things he needed to get right with God, and that was one thing that ... he needed to get right with him.” J.A. 66-67.
Accordingly, on Labor Day, September 6, 1993, J.A. 84, Chalmers mailed the following letter to LaMantia at his home:
Dear Rich,
The reason I’m writing you is because the Lord wanted me to share somethings [sic] with you. After reading this letter you do not have to give me a call, but talk to God about everything. i
Oné thing the Lord wants you to do is get your life right with him. The bible says in Roman 10:9vs that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, vs 10 — For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The two verse are [sic] saying for you to get right with God now.
The last thing is, you are doing somethings[sic] in your life that God is not please [sic] with and He wants you to stop. All you have to do is go to God and ask for forgiveness before it’s too late. , ■
I wrote this letter at home soil' you have a problem with it you can’t relate it to work.
I have to answer to God'just like you do, so that’s why I wrote you this letter. Please take heed before it’s too late. '
In his name,
Charita Chalmers
J.A. 67-68; 91-92.
Chalmers was unaware qf any other Tulon employees who sent to co-workers at their homes letters regarding religious beliefs, or, indeed, any mail, other than Christmas, birthday, or congratulatory cards. J.A. 80. Chalmers acknowledged that LaMantia had never said or done anything that signaled to her that he consented to a letter like this. JA. 71. When asked whether she knew “what Rich LaMantia’s religious beliefs are,” Chalmers responded that she knew “he believe[d] in God, that’s about it.” J.A, 74. She did not know his religious affiliation or whether he attended church regularly. J.A. 73-74. Nevertheless, Chalmers felt that she could write the above letter to LaMantia at .his home because of their “personal relationship” and their conversation two or three years earlier concerning people approaching LaMantia about accepting Christ. J.A. 66, 71, 72.
On September 10, 1993 when. Chalmers’ letter arrived at LaMantia’s home, he was out of town on Tulon business and his wife opened and read the letter in his absence. J.A. 43, 69. Mrs. LaMantia became distraught, interpreting the references to her husband’s improper conduct as indicating that he was committing adultery. J.A. 69-70. In tearsj she called Chalmers and asked her if LaMantia was having an affair' with someone in the New Hampshire area where LaMantia supervised another Tulon facility. Id. Mrs. LaMantia explained that three years before she and LaMantia had separated because of his infidelity. Id. Chalmers told Mrs. LaMantia that she did not know about any affair because she was in the Richmond area. Id. When Mrs. LaMantia asked her what she had meant by writing that there was something in LaMantia’s life that “he needed to get right with God,” Chal-mers explained about the turnaround time problem. J.A. 70. Mrs. LaMantia responded that she would take the letter and rip it up so LaMantia could not read it. Id. Chal-mers answered, “Please don’t do ■ that, the Lord led me to send this to Rich, so let'him [1016]*1016read it.” J.A. 70-71. The telephone conversation then ended. Id.
Mrs. LaMantia promptly telephoned her husband, interrupting a Tulon business presentation, to accuse him of infidelity. J.A. 43. LaMantia, in turn, called the Richmond office and asked to speak with Chalmers; she was in back and by the time she reached the telephone, LaMantia had hung up. J.A. 99. Chalmers then telephoned the LaMantias’ home and, when she failed to reach anyone, left a message on the answering machine that she was sorry “if the letter offended” LaMantia or his wife and that she “did not mean to offend him or make him upset about the letter.” J.A. 100.
LaMantia also telephoned Craig A. Faber, Vice President of Administration at Tulon. J.A. 43. LaMantia told Faber that the letter had caused him personal anguish and placed a serious strain on his marriage. Id. La-Mantia informed Faber that he felt he could no longer work with Chalmers. Id. LaMan-tia recommended that Tulon management terminate Chalmers’ employment. Id. At her deposition, Chalmers was asked what reaction she would have if one of the employees who worked for her telephoned her husband and told him she was committing adultery. J.A. 83. Chalmers pointed out that she had not telephoned anyone and had not written a letter stating that LaMantia was committing adultery, but she acknowledged that if another employee did telephone her husband with this information, it probably would affect her relationship with that coworker. Id.
While investigating LaMantia’s complaint, Faber discovered that Chalmers had sent a second letter, on the same day as she had sent the letter to LaMantia, to another Tulon employee. J.A. 43 and 49. That employee, Brenda Combs, worked as a repoint operator in the Richmond office and Chalmers was her direct supervisor. J.A. 53, 56-57. Chalmers knew that Combs was convalescing at her home, suffering from an undiagnosed illness after giving birth out of wedlock. J.A. 78. Chalmers sent Combs the following letter:
Brenda,
You probably do not want to hear this at this time, but you need the Lord Jesus in your life right now.
One thing about God, He doesn’t like when people commit adultery. You know what you did is wrong, so now you need to go to God and ask for forgiveness.
Let me explain something about God. He’s a God of Love and a God of Wrath. When people sin against .Him, He will allow things to happen to them or their family until they open their eyes and except [sic] Him. God can put a sickness on you that no doctor could ever find out what it is. I’m not saying this is what happened to you, all I’m saying is get right with God right now. Romans 10:9;10 vs says that is [sic] you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. All I’m saying you need to invite God into your heart and live a life for him and things in your life will get better.
That’s not saying you are not going to have problems but it’s saying you have someone to go to.
Please take , this letter in love and be obedient to God.
In his name,
Charita Chalmers
J.A. 78-79; 93-94.
Upon receiving the letter Combs wept. J.A. 44. Faber discussed the letter with Combs who told him that she had been “crushed by the tone of the letter.” Id. Combs beliéved that Chalmers implied that “an immoral lifestyle” had caused her illness and found Chalmers’ letter “cruel.” Id. Combs, in a later, unsworn statement, asserted that although the letter “upset her” it did not “offend” her or “damage her working relationship” with Chalmers. J.A. 96.2
[1017]*1017Faber consulted with other members of upper management and concluded that the letters caused a negative impact on working relationships, disrupted the workplace, and inappropriately invaded employee privacy. J.A. 44. On behalf of Tulon,- Faber then sent Chalmers a memorandum, informing her that she was terminated from her position. Id. The memorandum stated in relevant part:
We have decided to terminate your employment with Tulon Co. effective today, September 21,1993. Our decision is based on a serious error in judgment you made in sending letters to Rich LaMantia and Brenda Combs, which criticized their personal lives and beliefs. The letters offended them, invaded their privacy, and damaged your work relationships, making it too difficult for you to continue to work here.
We expect all of our employees to show good judgment, especially those in supervisory positions, such as yours. We would hope you can learn from this experience and avoid similar mistakes in the future.
J.A. 46.
Chalmers had apologized to LaMantia for any distress the letter caused. J.A 100. Chalmers believed that except for the fact that LaMantia did not want to discuss the letter with her, neither he nor Combs changed their conduct toward her after receipt of the letters. J.A. 104. Richmond center employees blamed Combs for Chal-mers’ termination. J.A. 102-103. Although Combs disclaimed any damage to her working relationship with Chalmers as a result of the letter, Tulon’s termination decision remained firm. J.A. 96.
As a result of the preceding events, Chal-mers filed suit, alleging that Tulon discriminated against her based on her religion, in violation of Title VII. J.A. 4—14. She contended that her letter writing constituted protected religious activity that Tulon, by law, should have accommodated with a lesser punishment than discharge. J.A. 7.
II.
Title VII makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discharge any individual ... because of such individual’s religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Courts have recognized that employees may utilize two theories in asserting religious discrimination claims. See, e.g., Mann v. Frank, 7 F.3d 1365, 1368-70 (8th Cir.1993) (analyzing discrimination suit as involving two separate theories). These theories are denominated as the “disparate treatment” and “failure to accommodate” theories. Id.
To prove a claim under the disparate treatment theory, an employee must demonstrate that the employer treated her differently than other employees because of her religious beliefs. The evidentiary burdens placed on the employee under this theory mirror those placed on employees alleging employment discrimination based on race or sex. Accordingly, a plaintiff-employee, alleging disparate treatment with respect to her discharge, satisfies her burden at the summary judgment stage if she establishes that her job performance was satisfactory and provides, “direct or indirect evidence whose cumulative probative force supports a reasonable inference that [the] discharge was discriminatory.” See Lawrence v. Mars, Inc., 955 F.2d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 823, 113 S.Ct. 76, 121 L.Ed.2d 40 (1992).
If the employee cannot provide direct evidence, she can utilize a burden-shifting scheme similar to the one the Supreme Court articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to develop an inferential case. Lawrence, 955 F.2d at 905-06. This might consist of evidence that the employer treated the employee more harshly than other employees of a different religion, or no religion, who had engaged in similar conduct. See Moore v. City of Charlotte, 754 F.2d 1100, 1105-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 3489, 87 L.Ed.2d 623 (1985). If the employee presents such evidence, the burden shifts to the employer to [1018]*1018articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions towards the employee. Id. at 1105. The employee is then required to show that the employer’s proffered reason is pretextual, and that the employer’s conduct towards her was actually motivated by illegal considerations. At all times, the ultimate burden of persuasion lies with the employee. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-94, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
Although Title VII similarly classifies religion, sex, and race as illegal considerations, the definition of “religion” in the statute places it in a special category. “Religion” is defined to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s ... religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Because this definition includes a requirement that an employer “accommodate” an employee’s religious expression, an employee is not limited to the disparate treatment theory to establish a discrimination claim. An employee can also bring suit based on the theory that the employer discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious conduct. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977).
In a religious accommodation case, an employee can establish a claim even though she cannot show that other (unprotected) employees were treated more favorably or cannot rebut an employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge. This is because an employer must, to an extent, actively attempt to accommodate an employee’s religious expression or conduct even if, absent the religious motivation, the employee’s conduct would supply a legitimate ground for discharge.
For example, an employee who is terminated for refusing to work on Sundays can maintain an accommodation claim even if other nonreligious employees were also fired for refusing Sunday work, and even though the employer’s proffered reason for the discharge — the refusal to perform required Sunday work — is legitimate and nondiscriminatory (because the Sunday work rule applies to all employees, regardless of religion). If the employee has notified the employer of his religious need to take Sundays off, the burden rests on the employer to show that it could not accommodate the employee’s religious practice without undue hardship. See EEOC v. Ithaca Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 116, 118 (4th Cir.) (en banc) (definition of religion under Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 924, 109 S.Ct. 306, 102 L.Ed.2d 325 (1988).
The district court did not fully elaborate on the basis for its dismissal of Chalmers’ claim. The court did state that Chalmers had failed to establish a prima facie case, and that, even if she had,, Tulon had offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for her discharge.
In this appeal, Chalmers does not appear to challenge the district court’s rationale for dismissing her claim under the disparate treatment theory, nor could she. Tu-lon’s proffered reasons for discharging Chalmers — because her letters, which criticized her fellow employees’ personal lives and beliefs, invaded the employees’ privacy, offended them and damaged her working relationships — are legitimate and non-discriminatory. Examination of the letters indicates that Chalmers knew that her conduct might distress her co-workers ie.g., her statement in the letter to Combs — ‘You probably do not want to hear this”). Additionally, the damage to her working relationship with LaMantia, arising from the marital discord her letter caused, is attributable to Chalmers whether or not it was intended or foreseeable (had she not invaded LaMantia’s privacy by sending the letter to his home and included vague references to immoral conduct, Mrs. LaMantia would not have been upset).
Chalmers’ primary argument is not that the district court erred in its analysis of her claim under the disparate treatment theory, but that the court erred in failing to analyze her suit under the accommodation theory. In other words, she apparently maintains that even if her letters provided Tulon with a legitimate reason for her discharge, her reli[1019]*1019gious motive for writing the letters required Tulon to accommodate her conduct. Accordingly, we turn to the question of whether Chalmers’ complaint survives summary judgment under the accommodation theory.
III.
We have never articulated a framework for analyzing religious accommodation claims. Several of our sister circuits, however, have developed such a framework, which we now adopt.
To establish a prima facie religious accommodation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; (3) he or she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir.1985) (quoting Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir.1984)), aff'd on other grounds, 479 U.S. 60, 65, 107 S.Ct. 367, 370, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that it could not accommodate the plaintiffs religious needs without undue hardship. Id.; see also EEOC v. Arlington Transit Mix, Inc., 957 F.2d 219, 221-22 (6th Cir.1991); Beasley v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 940 F.2d 1085, 1088 (7th Cir.1991); EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir.1989); Jenkins v. Louisiana, 874 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059, 110 S.Ct. 871, 107 L.Ed.2d 955 (1990); Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 797 F.2d 129, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 972, 107 S.Ct. 474, 93 L.Ed.2d 418 (1986).
Chalmers has alleged that she holds bona fide religious beliefs that caused her to write the letters. Tulon offers no evidence to the contrary. The parties agree that Tulon fired Chalmers because she wrote the letters. Accordingly, Chalmers has satisfied the first and third elements of the prima facie test. However, in other equally important respects, Chalmers’ accommodation claim fails.
A.
Chalmers cannot satisfy the second element of the prima facie test. She has forecast no evidence that she notified Tulon that her religious beliefs required her to send personal, disturbing letters to her coworkers. Therefore she did not allow the company any sort of opportunity to attempt reasonable accommodation of her beliefs.
As Chalmers recognizes, a prima facie case under the,¡accommodation- theory requires evidence that she informed her employer that her religious needs conflicted with an employment requirement and asked the employer to accommodate her religious needs. See Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897, 901 (7th Cir.1978) (prima facie standard includes a “requirement that plaintiff inform his employer of both his religious needs and his need for an accommodation”); Cary v. Carmichael, 908 F.Supp. 1334, 1343-46 (E.D.Va.1995). Compare Ithaca, 849 F.2d at 118 (if an employee requests to observe the Sabbath, the employer must attempt to accommodate) with EEOC v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 740 F.Supp. 1135, 1137 (E.D.N.C.1990) (employer may fire an employee who failed to provide advance notice of his religious beliefs regarding the Sabbath).
Chalmers concedes that she did not expressly notify Tulon that her religion- required her to write letters like those at issue here to her co-workers, or request that Tulon accommodate her conduct. Nonetheless, for several reasons, she contends that such notice was unnecessary in this case.
Initially, Chalmers asserts that Tulon never explicitly informed her of a company policy against writing religious letters to fellow employees at their homes and so she had “no reason to request an accommodation.” Reply Brief at 12. However, companies cannot be expected to notify employees explicitly of all types of conduct that might annoy coworkers, damage working relationships, and thereby provide grounds for discharge. As noted previously, Chalmers implicitly acknowledged in the letters themselves that they might distress her co-workers. Moreover, she conceded that, as a supervisor, she [1020]*1020had a responsibility to “promote harmony in the workplace.”
Although a rule justifying discharge of an employee because she has disturbed eo-work-ers requires careful application in the religious discrimination context (many religious practices might be perceived as “disturbing” to others), Chalmers, particularly as a supervisor, is expected to know that sending personal, distressing letters to coworkers’ homes, criticizing them for assertedly ungodly, shameful conduct, would violate employment policy. Accordingly, the failure of the company to expressly forbid supervisors from disturbing other employees in this way, provides Chalmers with no basis for failing to notify Tulon that her religious beliefs required her to write such letters.
Alternatively, Chalmers contends that the notoriety of her religious beliefs within the company put it on notice of her need to send these letters. In her view, Chalmers satisfied the notice requirement because Tu-lon required “only enough information about an employee’s religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict between the employee’s religious practices and the employer’s job requirements.” Brown v. Polk County, 61 F.3d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1995) (en banc) (quoting Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1439 (9th Cir.1993)).
Knowledge that an employee has strong religious beliefs does not place an employer on notice that she might engage in any religious activity, no matter how unusual. Chalmers concedes that she did not know of any other employee who had ever written distressing or judgmental letters to co-workers before, and that nothing her co-workers had said or done indicated that such letters were acceptable. Accordingly, any knowledge Tulon may have possessed regarding Chalmers’ beliefs could not reasonably have put it on notice that she would write and send accusatory letters to co-workers’ homes. Cf. Brown, 61 F.3d at 654 (holding that because the employee had engaged in similar religious conduct on prior occasions, employer had notice of the conflict).3
Chalmers also contends that the letters themselves provided notice that her religious beliefs compelled her to write them. But giving notice to co-workers at the same time as an employee violates employment requirements is insufficient to provide adequate notice to the employer and to shield the employee’s conduct. See Johnson v. Angelica Uniform Group, Inc., 762 F.2d 671 (8th Cir.1985) (plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice to establish prima facie case where she left a note to her employer immediately before she went away for several days, informing the employer that she would need to exceed her allotted leave time for religious reasons).
In a similar vein, Chalmers appears to contend that because Tulon was necessarily aware of the religious nature of the letters after her co-workers received them and before her discharge, Tulon should have attempted to accommodate her by giving her a sanction less than a discharge, such as a warning. This raises a false issue. There is nothing in Title VII that requires employers to give lesser punishments to employees who claim, after they violate company rules (or at the same time), that their religion caused them to transgress the rules. See Johnson, 762 F.2d at 673 (employer need not establish that it attempted accommodation when plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice to the employer before violating employment rules, even though the employer knew of the religious motive for employee’s violation prior to discharge).
Part of the reason for the advance notice requirement is to allow the company to avoid or limit any “injury” an employee’s religious conduct may cause. Additionally, the refusal even to attempt to accommodate an employee’s religious requests, prior to the employ[1021]*1021ee’s violation of employment rules and sanction, provides some indication, however slight, of improper motive on the employer’s part. The proper issue, therefore, is whether Chalmers made Tulon aware, prior to her letter writing, that her religious beliefs would cause her to send the letters. Since it is clear that she did not, her claims fail. See J.P. Stevens, 740 F.Supp. at 1137.
In sum, Chalmers has not pointed to any evidence that she gave Tulon—either directly or indirectly—advance notice of her need for accommodation. For this reason, Chalmers has failed to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination under the religious accommodation theory.
B.
If we had concluded that Chalmers had established a prima facie case, Chalmers’ religious accommodation claim would nonetheless fail. This is so because Chalmers’ conduct is not the type that an employer can possibly accommodate, even with notice.
Chalmers concedes in the letters themselves that she knew the letters to her coworkers, accusing them of immoral conduct (in the letter to Combs, suggesting that Combs’ immoral conduct caused her illness), might cause them distress. Even if Chal-mers had notified Tulon expressly that her religious beliefs required her to write such letters, i.e. that she was “led by the Lord” to write them, J.A. 66, Tulon was without power under any circumstance to accommodate Chalmers’ need.
Typically, religious accommodation suits involve religious conduct, such as observing the Sabbath, wearing religious garb, etc., that result in indirect and minimal burdens, if any, on other employees. Cf. Wilson v. U.S. West Communications, 68 F.3d 1337, 1342 (8th Cir.1995) (accommodation required when employee wore a religious button that bothered co-workers indirectly). An employer can often accommodate such needs without inconveniencing or unduly burdening other employees.
In a case like the one at hand, however, where an employee contends that she has a religious need to impose personally and directly on fellow employees, invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives, the employer is placed between a rock and a hard place. If Tulon had the power to authorize Chalmers to write such letters, and if Tulon had granted Chalmers’ request to write the letters, the company would subject itself to possible suits from Combs and La-Mantia claiming that Chalmers’ conduct violated their religious freedoms or constituted religious harassment. Chalmers’ supervisory position at the Richmond office heightens the possibility that Tulon (through Chalmers) would appear to be imposing religious beliefs on employees. Cf. Wilson, 58 F.3d at 1342 (“Title VII does not require an employer to allow an employee to impose ... religious views on others”).
Thus, even if Chalmers had notified Tulon that her religion required her to send the letters at issue here to her co-workers, Tulon would have been unable to accommodate that conduct.
IV.
We do not in any way question the sincerity of Chalmers’ religious beliefs or practices. However, it is undisputed that Chalmers failed to notify Tulon that her religious beliefs led her to send personal, disturbing letters to her fellow employees accusing them of immorality. It is also undisputed that the effect of a letter on one of the recipients, LaMantia’s wife, whether intended or not, caused a co-worker, LaMantia, great stress and caused him to complain that he could no longer work with Chalmers. Finally, it is undisputed that another employee, Combs, told a company officer that Chal-mers’ letter upset her (although she later claimed that her working relationship with Chalmers was unaffected). Under these facts, Chalmers cannot establish a religious accommodation claim. Accordingly, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Tulon is
AFFIRMED.