Supreme Court Modifies Undue Hardship Standard for Religious Accommodations

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Groff v. Dejoy, a case involving an Evangelical Christian USPS worker who sought a religious accommodation to abstain from work on Sundays. The highly anticipated decision alters nearly 50 years of federal caselaw regarding what constitutes an undue hardship sufficient to justify an employer’s denial of a request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The ruling establishes a heightened standard for employers, who now must show that the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” before denying an accommodation.  

Under Title VII, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for the sincerely held religious beliefs or practices of their employees unless the employer can show that providing an accommodation poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. Since 1977, many federal courts have held that an accommodation poses an undue hardship if it imposes more than a “de minimis” cost on, or effort of, the employer.   

The plaintiff in this case, Groff, began working as a postal worker for USPS in 2012. Groff refused to work on Sundays, as he believed Sundays should be devoted to religious worship and rest. When USPS began requiring its postal workers to work on Sundays, Groff requested and received a transfer to a USPS facility which was not yet performing Sunday deliveries. In 2017, Sunday deliveries began at this facility as well, but Groff maintained his refusal to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. To accommodate him, USPS initially made arrangements to have other staff members cover the Sunday shifts that Groff would otherwise have worked and employees complained about the consequences of Groff’s absence from Sunday work. Ultimately, Groff resigned in 2019 after receiving progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He then sued USPS under Title VII, claiming that USPS could have accommodated his religious beliefs without undue hardship on the conduct of its business. The district court granted summary judgment for USPS on the basis that accommodating Groff would impose more than a de minimis cost on USPS. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

The Supreme Court unequivocally disavowed the “de minimis” standard, holding that showing a more than de minimis cost is no longer sufficient to establish an undue hardship. Instead, the Court clarified that an undue hardship exists where the burden of providing an accommodation is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business. In applying this standard, employers must consider all relevant facts, including the particular accommodations at issue, and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating costs of the employer.

The Court also addressed common issues employers face when evaluating accommodation requests, and how those issues can factor into the undue hardship analysis. First, the Court examined whether and when an accommodation’s effect on coworkers could constitute an undue hardship. The Court held that the impact on coworkers is relevant only to the extent the impact on coworkers “affect[s] the conduct of the business.” The mere fact that an accommodation will impact coworkers is insufficient to establish an undue hardship. Furthermore, the Court noted that employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practices cannot be considered as part of an undue hardship on the employer.

Second, the Court emphasized that Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion – merely assessing the reasonableness of the accommodation requested and determining that it would pose an undue hardship is not sufficient. Rather, employers must consider other means of accommodating the employee’s religious beliefs or practices to evaluate whether an alternative accommodation exists that will meet the employee’s needs without posing an undue hardship on the business. For example, to deny a religious accommodation request, such as Groff’s, on the basis that requiring other employees work overtime is an undue hardship would not be sufficient. Rather, employers are required to consider other possible accommodations, such as voluntary shift swapping, and determine that those alternative accommodations would also pose an undue hardship, before denying an accommodation request.  

While the Court’s ruling is a significant shift in federal law, New York employers are well-situated to adapt to the Court’s ruling as New York State and New York City already have a heightened standard for establishing whether an undue hardship exists. Under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Laws, an undue burden requires a showing of a “significant difficulty or expense,” and consideration of multiple factors. Nevertheless, in light of the Court’s decision, employers should review their accommodation practices and policies to ensure they are properly evaluating all requests for religious accommodations. Employers should also ensure that those evaluating accommodation requests are properly trained in how to effectively engage in the interactive dialogue in the context of religious accommodations as well as how to properly evaluate whether an accommodation may pose an undue hardship. Employers with questions about religious accommodation requests, policies, or best practices with respect to reasonable accommodations should contact Kate Townley at ktownley@fglawllc.com or any other attorney at the Firm.

DISCLAIMER: This alert is provided to clients and friends of the firm for informational purposes only and the distribution of this alert is not intended to, and does not, establish an attorney-client relationship. This alert also does not provide or offer legal advice or opinions on any specific factual situations or matters. This communication may be considered Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.