For nearly 50 years, the standard for evaluating whether a request for a religious accommodation under Title VII poses an undue hardship to the employer (and therefore, a basis to deny a requested accommodation) has been guided by the “more than de minimis cost” standard set by Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 532 U.S. 63, 84 (1977).
On June 29, 2023, that standard was clarified by a unanimous Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, Case No. 22-174 (2023). Justice Alito, writing for the Court, adopted a standard for undue hardship that he concludes more closely reflects its ordinary meaning and which sets the bar higher for denying a request for religious accommodation. According to the Court, undue hardship is shown by an employer when the “burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
Groff involves a request by an Evangelical Christian for a religious accommodation of not working on Sunday Sabbaths. For several years, as a rural carrier associate for the United States Postal Service, plaintiff was generally not required to work Sundays. Over time, Sunday work became required to satisfy work requirements. As a result, work that plaintiff would have performed on Sunday was redistributed to other employees. In response, plaintiff received progressive discipline and eventually resigned. He filed suit under Title VII, claiming his employer could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice without undue hardship on the conduct of his employer’s business. Plaintiff lost his case at the district court and at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, after application of the “more than de minimis cost” standard.
The Court ultimately did not apply its clarified standard to the facts of Groff’s case, but vacated and remanded the case back to the lower courts to apply the standard. Even so, the Court’s opinion provides some key guidance for employers evaluating a request for religious accommodation.
- Remains a highly fact specific analysis. Courts must apply the test in a manner that takes into account all relevant factors at hand, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.
- Affirms that administrative costs involved in reworking schedules, the infrequent or temporary payment of premium wage for a substitute and voluntary substitutes and swaps when they are not contrary to a bona fide seniority system are unlikely to constitute undue hardship. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1605.2(e)(1), (2).
- A proposed accommodation’s impact on co-workers is relevant only to the extent that it affects the conduct of the business.
- A hardship attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered undue.
- Rejects use of decades of caselaw involving “undue hardship” under the Americans with Disabilities Act to evaluate undue hardship for religious accommodation.
The initial impact of Groff on employers is straightforward. Employers must now evaluate requests for religious accommodations using the higher standard. The burden on the employer is no longer “more than a di minimis cost” but must be substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. This may lead to more accommodations being requested and more being granted.
It also leads to some interesting questions in the future. Vaccine mandates may no longer be the hot topic of the day, but how would this higher standard have impacted employees seeking religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination? Employees were regularly denied religious exemptions from mandatory vaccines using the de minimis standard. See e.g. Creger v. United Launch All. LLC, 571 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (N.D. Ala. 2021)(denying preliminary injunction on denial of religious accommodation to vaccine mandate because unlikely to succeed on merits as employer met di minimis standard defense). Many religious accommodation denials were also upheld where granting the accommodation would create undue hardship on the employer who would be in violation of state or federal law. Nelson Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corp., No. 1:22-CV-8340 (JLR), 2023 WL 4157164, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023).
Going forward, employers, in consultation with their counsel, will need to evaluate religious accommodation requests after careful review of the facts and existing caselaw, considered in light of the Groff standard.