In a unanimous decision entitled Groff v. Dejoy, the United States Supreme Court clarified when an employer may deny a religious accommodation request because it constitutes an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. On June 29, 2023, the Court clarified that the proper standard imposed by Title VII and interpreted from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 84 (1977) is whether the requested accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in the overall context of an employer’s business.” While it noted that earlier interpretations from the EEOC would likely remain intact notwithstanding this clarification, it left the lower courts to assess how to apply this standard on a case by case basis.

Background

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for covered employers (i.e., enterprises with fifteen (15) or more employees) “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment” because of such individual’s religion. The law also states that employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice unless the employer is “unable” to do so “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

Over the last fifty (50) years, lower courts have increasingly interpreted a line in Hardison to mean that for an employer to show undue hardship, it need only show the requested accommodation would lead to more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. Religious groups argued this led to an increasingly low threshold, albeit one that requires more than bare minimal efforts from the employer, as the nomenclature of the former paradigm might suggest.

Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian, requested a religious accommodation from his employer (the U.S. Postal Service) to be exempt from working Sunday shifts, a day he believed should be devoted to worship. USPS was not always able to accommodate this request and it began issuing him progressive discipline prior to his resignation for being unwilling to work on Sundays. Groff sued USPS under Title VII, contending it could have accommodated his religious beliefs without undue hardship. The district court granted summary judgment to USPS, and on appeal, the Third Circuit held that USPS had fulfilled its legal requirement by showing that exempting Groff from Sunday work “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.” Under Third Circuit precedent, it held the low “de minimis” threshold from Hardison was satisfied. The Supreme Court granted review to clarify its Hardison decision.

The Undue Hardship Standard and its Effect on Employers

After reviewing the Hardison decision and how courts and the EEOC have understood its significance, the Court clarified the proper standard for evaluating religious accommodation requests. Specifically, a religious accommodation may be denied on the basis of undue hardship “when the burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” The Court emphasized that this is a fact-specific inquiry that should be applied “in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test.” The Court recognized that the EEOC’s previous guidance in this area is not likely to be affected by this clarification. But it left for the lower courts to decide how to apply this standard on a case by case basis.

Specific to Groff’s case, the Court held that 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, like voluntary or optional shift swapping, would need to be considered. The lower court would need to consider whether the impact on co-workers from the accommodation has a ramification on the employer’s business. But of course, a co-worker’s dislike of religious practice or expression in the workplace is not a cognizable factor. Nor is bias or hostility towards a religious practice or religious accommodation (e.g., an employer may not refuse a religious accommodation due to customer aversion or discomfort in dealing with bearded people or people in religious garments).

It remains to be seen how this decision will impact religious accommodation cases in the future, but employers should consider all reasonable accommodations before refusing to grant a request.

If you have questions or would like assistance reviewing religious accommodation requests, please contact us.

• Simone M. Leonard (sleonard@wilsonturnerkosmo.com)
• Daniel C. Gunning (dgunning@wilsonturnerkosmo.com)

Wilson Turner Kosmo’s Special Alerts are intended to update our valued clients on significant employment law developments as they occur. This should not be considered legal advice.