On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court published their opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General (“Groff”), clarifying what “undue hardship” means in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) when denying a religious accommodation in the workplace. The last time religious accommodation was brought before the Supreme Court was nearly 50 years ago in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, in which lower courts have since used “de minimis” as the cost standard for employers to deny reasonable religious accommodations. The decision in Groff requires a showing of “undue hardship” for employers to refuse religious requests.
Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian employed by the US Postal Service (USPS), observed Sundays as a religious day of rest. Groff, despite his efforts to have his religious request accommodated, eventually received “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays, and ultimately resigned. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting the USPS could have accommodated his Sundays off “without undue hardship on the conduct of USPS business.”
The previous standard of cost employers had to prove was a de minimis cost, but in Groff, the Supreme Court held that showing “more than a de minimis cost” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. To determine what an employer must prove to defend a denial of a religious accommodation under Title VII, Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “conduct of the employer’s business.” For example, in Groff, USPS employs over 200,000 employees, thus making it not an “undue hardship” to grant one employee’s request for religious accommodations for Sundays off. Furthermore, Title VII requires that an employer “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s practice of religion, not merely assess the reasonableness of a possible accommodation or accommodations. Employers will now need to consider religious requests in areas such as scheduling, dress codes, workplace breaks and even paid days off.
The Supreme Court is taking a case-by-case approach to religious accommodation, and we anticipate further litigation around this issue. If you have any questions on religious accommodations, please contact Ann Grottveit at agrottveit@kscsacramento.com.
