In the recent case of Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the standard for determining undue hardship when considering an employee’s request for religious accommodation under Title VII. For the last 26 years, to establish undue hardship, employers had to show only that the requested accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost or effort. Under that low standard, it was not difficult for employers to establish undue hardship. Now, under the new Supreme Court decision, to deny a reasonable request for religious accommodation on the grounds of undue hardship, an employer must show that the accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
Plaintiff Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian who believes that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest, not work for his employer, the US Postal Service (USPS). When hired, Mr. Groff was not initially asked to work on Sundays. But USPS later entered into an agreement with Amazon to make deliveries on Sundays and as a result, Mr. Groff was required to work on Sundays. When he refused, USPS subjected him to progressive discipline and he resigned.
When Mr. Groff sued USPS for failing to accommodate his Sunday sabbath practice, the trial court ruled in favor of USPS on the grounds that it met the low standard for showing undue hardship. Exempting Mr. Groff from the Sunday requirement meant that his coworkers had to do more of his work, which disrupted workflow and employee morale. This imposed more than a de minimis cost.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reasoned that the de minimis standard, in effect since 1977, was a “mistake.” Instead, the Court adopted a new standard in which undue hardship requires an employer to show that the accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Trial courts must now apply that test “in a manner that takes 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.”
With respect to Mr. Groff’s case, the Court held that it is not enough for USPS to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Instead, the employer may need to consider other options, such as voluntary shift swapping and incentive pay. The case was sent back to the trial court for consideration under the new undue hardship standard.
If your business has 15 or more employees (and is therefore covered by Title VII), it now needs to consider employee requests for religious accommodations under the new standard. Please contact any member of RQN’s employment section if you have questions or require assistance.
Liesel Brand Stevens
Liesel B. Stevens serves as the chair of the Firm’s Employment and Labor Law Section. Her employment practice focuses on defending employers in litigation matters and advising employers on various state and federal employment laws.