On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, a case evaluating the “undue hardship” standard for denying religious accommodation requests. The case involved a U.S. Postal Service worker who had requested not to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. The employer denied the accommodation because it would have caused more than a “de minimis,” or very minor, hardship on the employer. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the de minimis standard was the correct standard in religious accommodation cases. The Court held that it was not.
The Court did not issue a decision about whether the requested accommodation was an undue hardship. Instead, the decision focused on what standard to apply when evaluating undue hardship in the religious accommodation context. The Court rejected using the de minimis standard that has evolved over the last 50 years. It also rejected using the stringent Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standard for undue hardship. Instead, the Court said that to deny a religious accommodation, an employer must show that the burden of granting the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
Courts must apply the test to take into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer. Therefore, a court should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.
One factor that cannot be considered an undue hardship is animosity or bias against a particular religion or religion in general. Furthermore, if an employer finds that the requested accommodation is an undue hardship, it must consider alternative accommodations.
Although this is a significant change from the last 50 years of the de minimis standard, the decision did say that a good deal of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by the Court’s clarifying decision. While this is a higher standard for employers to show an undue hardship, it is not the same as the ADA, and many employers may have been in compliance if they followed the EEOC guidance.
The case was sent down to the lower court to issue a decision using the new standard. It is likely that we will see additional Supreme Court cases further defining and interpreting this standard in future terms. The Supreme Court did say that when an employer is “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. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.”
For now, employers should revisit their religious accommodation policies, procedures, and practices. Employers should remove any reference to “de minimis.” Additionally, supervisors should be trained or retrained on how to respond to religious accommodation requests and how to propose alternative accommodations. Lastly, if the only cost of accommodation is administrative, employers should consider allowing the accommodation to avoid potential liability. If you have any questions, please email the Employers Council Member Experience Team.
#ReligiousDiscrimination