U.S. Supreme Court Heightens Employer Burden for Religious Accommodations
Key Takeaways:
-
In Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court renders new standard for employers assessing religious accommodations
-
Employers should review their accommodation policies and practices in light of Groff
-
Employers should ensure that personnel responsible for engaging in the interactive process in response to religious accommodation requests are aware of the new standard
On June 29, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, disrupting the longstanding standard applied to employers responding to religious accommodation requests that was previously solidified by Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). In Trans World, and the nearly 50 years of case law that has followed, the standard employers were held to when denying a religious accommodation request was whether granting the accommodation was “more than a de minimis cost” to their business.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate the religious practice of their employees, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. Examples of religious accommodations include, but are not limited to, flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, providing a time and place to pray, job reassignments, and allowing flexibility to wear religious attire at work.
Groff involved an Evangelical Christian working for the U.S. Postal Service who believed for religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. The case presented the Supreme Court with its first opportunity since Trans World to examine the standard. Ultimately, the new, higher standard under Groff requires employers to determine if the accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Moving forward, courts will evaluate religious accommodation claims by taking 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 the employer. Additionally, an accommodation’s effect on coworkers may be relevant, but only if the effect relates to the conduct of the business and not just the coworkers general dislike of religious practice or expression in the workplace.
In light of Groff, employers are advised to review their accommodation policies and practices and to ensure that personnel responsible for engaging in the interactive process in response to religious accommodation requests are aware of the new standard.
For more information or immediate guidance, contact:
Or another member of the Employment and Labor practice