The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Groff v. DeJoy on Thursday, June 29th, 2023, invalidating the widely accepted standard of “undue hardship” that is applied when an employer is evaluating a requested religious accommodation. Before now, employers were not required to bear more than a de minimis cost in providing religious accommodations.
The Case
The case started when a United States Post Office employee was unwilling to work on Sundays as he believed, for religious reasons, that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. When USPS began delivering packages on Sundays , the employee remained unwilling to work. Throughout this time, the employee received progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays and eventually resigned in lieu of his expected termination. A few months after resigning, he sued USPS under Title VII, claiming that USPS could have accommodated his request not to work Sundays “without undue hardship” and therefore USPS violated Title VII when it refused to do so. The District Court granted summary judgment to USPS, which was affirmed by the Third Circuit. Both courts felt bound by the Hardison decision, a former Supreme Court decision that was widely construed to mean that an undue hardship is found, and employers are not required to provide a religious accommodation, when granting the accommodation would make an employer bear more than a de minimis cost.
The Supreme Court, in its Thursday ruling, upended that widely held definition of “undue hardship” that required an employer to bear no more than a de minimis cost in providing religious accommodations. Writing for the Court in its unanimous ruling, Justice Alito clarified the standard to mean that “undue hardship” is shown “when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business” and is a fact specific inquiry. The case was remanded to lower courts to determine whether the employee’s requested accommodation fit into this newly clarified definition.
What Employers Need to Know
When evaluating religious accommodations, employers need to be mindful of this heightened definition of “undue hardship.” Undue hardship is unlikely to be found by the imposition of temporary costs, occasional shift swapping, or administrative costs. The Court says a hardship that is attributable to other employees’ animosity to religion in general, a particular religion, or the notion of accommodating religion, will not be considered sufficiently substantial to deny the requested accommodation. Faced with an accommodation request that does constitute undue hardship, an employer must also take into consideration other options that may not be as burdensome. What is most important is that undue hardship needs to be considered in the overall context of an employer’s business and must be substantial, not merely a de minimis cost.
Bottom line
When evaluating a religious accommodation request, “undue hardship” is found when the burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business, not merely more than a de minimis cost. This is a heightened standard that employers must be mindful of when evaluating requests for religious accommodations.
Special thanks to our summer law clerk, Marina Cruz, for her work in drafting this blog post.