On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Groff v. DeJoy No. 22-174 – a case concerning the accommodations that employers must make for the religious beliefs of their employees. In this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified and changed the religious accommodation standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, interpreting that ‘undue hardship’ for an employer can be shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.
Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful “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.” In 1968, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted that clause to require employers to “make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employees” unless it would create an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” In Groff v. DeJoy, the Court was asked to interpret the meaning of “undue hardship” and decide what burden an employer must show to exempt them from Title VII’s requirement.
Previously, the Court had already interpreted the meaning of the EEOC’s rule. In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), the Supreme Court held that anything “more than a de minimis cost” is enough to show an “undue hardship.” In the years following this decision, the Federal Circuit Courts narrowed in on the opinion’s “de minimis” language, finding that a religious accommodation which burdens the employer in suggestively any way excuses that employer from the requirement. 46 years later, both parties before the court agreed that the Hardison court’s interpretation of “undue burden,” was incorrect.
Petitioner, Gerald Groff — an Evangelical Christian mailman who brought this action after receiving “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays — argued that the standard should be “significant difficulty or expense.” The Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, on behalf of the USPS, instead argued that employers should be required to show “substantial additional cost,” before being excused the requirements.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Alito agreed with the parties that the showing of a “de minimis cost” does not establish an “undue hardship” under Title VII. Relying on the understanding of the phrase in “common parlance” and “ordinary speech,” the Court announced that the new standard requires employers to show “an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Justice Alito highlighted that, under this new test, courts should look at “all relevant factors . . . including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, ‘size and operating cost of [an] employer.’”
The Court admitted that “in all likelihood,” much will “be unaffected by our clarifying decision today.” While Petitioner Groff had asked the Justices to outright overturn Hardison, they declined to do so. After this decision, employers must continue to show substantial costs to their business before they decline to accommodate employees’ religious practices.
While the judgment falls short of working a complete sea change, it clarifies two important points for employers. First, when determining reasonableness, the burden of a particular religious accommodation must be weighed against its impact on the business as a whole. Second, it is not enough for employers to conclude preliminarily that an accommodation might burden their business. When an employee’s religious accommodation requires, for example, other employees to work overtime, businesses must first consider “other options, such as voluntary shift swapping,” before concluding that the accommodation constitutes an “undue burden.”
In making its decision, the Court laid out these important considerations for employers. Employers must be cognizant of the points highlighted above and stay vigilant for further shifts that the Court might make as it maneuvers religious liberties.
If you have any questions about the Supreme Court opinion in Groff v. DeJoy and what it could mean for your business, please contact Lisa Alexis Jones.
Lisa is a Partner with Leech Tishman and Vice Chair of the firm’s Employment & Labor Practice Group where she leads the Workplace Harassment & Discrimination Group. Lisa is based in the firm’s New York City office, but also practices out of Leech Tishman’s Washington, D.C. location. Lisa can be reached at 332.232.1300 or ljones@leechtishman.com.
Reed Widdoes, JD Candidate 2024, American University Washington College of Law, contributed to the research and drafting of this article.