Supreme Court Decides Religious Accommodation Case

By Kelly A. Hayden, JD, Chief Legal Counsel
Published July 11, 2023

The United States Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that will impact how employers decide requests for religious accommodation under Title VII. 

In Groff v. DeJoy, the Court indicated that it was “clarifying” the standard for employers when asserting “undue hardship” as a reason to deny an employee’s request for an accommodation. Prior to this decision, employers looked to Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, a Supreme Court decision issued in 1977, for the standard when considering such requests. In the Hardison case, the Court noted that the appropriate standard is whether the employer must bear “more than a de minimis cost” when providing accommodation. The suggestion was that employers were not required to incur substantial costs because of an employee’s request. (Note that when the term “costs” is used, it not only connotes financial costs, but all types of costs, such as those associated with completion of work, schedule changes, the burden on other workers, etc.)

In the Groff case, the Court considered the claim of a mail carrier who could not work on Sundays due to his religious belief as an Evangelical Christian that Sundays are for rest and worship. When he began working with the post office, the position did not require Sunday work. However, shortly thereafter, the postal service signed an agreement with Amazon to facilitate deliveries on Sundays. Initially, the plaintiff was able to transfer to a location that was not assisting with such deliveries, but eventually Amazon assistance began at that location as well. The post office sought volunteers to work plaintiff’s scheduled Sunday shifts, but this was not always possible. In addition, some employees were upset that they had to work additional Sundays to cover his shifts. Upon receiving progressive discipline for a failure to work on Sundays when no one else could cover his shift, the plaintiff resigned.

After he filed suit for a failure to accommodate, the post office raised a defense that it was disruptive for other employees to always cover the Sunday shifts and that when no one could cover, workflow was also disrupted. Upon consideration of this defense, the Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that an employer must show more than a de minimis cost to deny religious accommodation. Specifically, the Court held that an employer may demonstrate undue hardship by showing “the burden of granting an 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.”

The Court also noted that: 1) animosity or disgruntlement on the part of coworkers is not a legitimate reason to deny an accommodation request; and 2) an employer who believes the accommodation requested by an employee is not feasible should consider other options. Considering the Court’s decision, the Groff case was sent back to the lower court to apply this new legal standard to the facts of the case. 

Employers who are faced with requests for religious accommodation should be wary of this heightened legal standard prior to denying any such request. HR Source members who have questions about this decision or who receive a request for accommodation should contact our Employment Law Services Department for assistance through the HR Hotline online or at 800-448-4584.