Follow us on LinkedIn to see future Client Alerts.
July 7, 2023
The Supreme Court last week unanimously decided that, if an employer denies an employee’s religious accommodation request, that employer is required, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), to show an undue hardship, which the Court interpreted to mean substantial increased costs to the employer’s business. The case, Groff v. DeJoy, [1] presented the Supreme Court with its first opportunity in almost 50 years to expound on its decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, [2] which provided that an employer did not have to grant a religious accommodation if the accommodation would impose “more than a de minimis cost” on the employer’s business.
Background of Groff v. DeJoy
Gerald Groff began working for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) in 2012. As an Evangelical Christian, Groff believes that he should refrain from “secular labor” on Sundays because Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest. Initially, Groff’s position with the USPS did not require him to work on Sundays; however, that changed when the USPS began facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon. To avoid Sunday work, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station that did not require him to work on Sundays, but it was not long before that station also began handling Sunday deliveries for Amazon. Committed to his religious beliefs, Groff refused to work on Sundays, which required the USPS to redistribute Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other USPS employees. The USPS began progressive discipline for Groff for his unwillingness to work on Sundays, which, in January 2019, culminated in Groff’s decision to resign from the USPS. Groff then sued the USPS under Title VII, asserting that it could have accommodated his religious beliefs without undue hardship to its business.
So, what is undue hardship?
In April 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to the USPS, holding that exempting Groff from Sunday work caused undue hardship to the USPS because of the impacts on other USPS workers who had to fill in for Groff. Groff appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, reasoning that it was bound by the ruling in Hardison, which held that requiring an employer to bear “more than a de minimis cost” to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.
The Supreme Court disagreed and held that showing “more than a de minimis cost” is not enough to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII, and that the Hardison decision cannot be reduced to that one phrase. This Supreme Court understands Hardison “to mean that ‘undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” What that phrase means is that “an employer may be required to bear costs and make expenditures that are not ‘substantial.’”
The Supreme Court emphasized that Title VII “requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations.” When “faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship.” Rather, “consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.” The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
Take Away for Employers
Denying a religious accommodation request now requires a showing of substantial increased costs. Employers should review their policies and procedures regarding accommodation requests to ensure that they are consistent with the new standard. Employers also should train the personnel responding to employees’ religious accommodation requests on the new standard.
This newsletter is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist.
Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] 600 U.S. ____ (2023).
[2] 432 U.S. 63 (1977).
