Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy clarified the “undue hardship” standard under which it can deny a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court rejected a “de minimis cost” test, and held that an employer denying a religious accommodation must show that the burden of granting an accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

Background

The case was brought by Gerald Groff, a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier who believed for religious reasons that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest.  When Groff refused to work Sundays, USPS redistributed his Sunday deliveries to other staff and disciplined Groff, who later resigned.  Groff then sued USPS under Title VII, asserting that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice without undue hardship.

The District Court granted summary judgment to USPS.  The Third Circuit affirmed based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which it construed to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.”  The Third Circuit found the de minimis cost standard was met, as exempting Groff from Sunday work had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.”

Opinion

The question presented in Groff v. DeJoy was twofold: (1) whether the Court should disapprove the de minimis cost test for refusing Title VII religious accommodations as stated in Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate “undue hardship” under Title VII merely by showing burden on the employee’s coworkers rather than the business itself. 

On the first question presented, the Court held that an “undue burden” was one that would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” – a “fact-specific inquiry” that comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue hardship” in ordinary speech.  The Court stated that the test must be applied 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 [the] employer.”  However, the Court declined to determine whether USPS had met this standard, and instead remanded to the lower court to make that determination.

On the second question presented, the Court clarified that not all impacts on coworkers were relevant to whether a requested religious accommodation was an undue hardship, but only those that “go on to affect[t] the conduct of the business.”  However, the Court explicitly stated that a hardship due to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.”  Further, the Court stated that it was not enough for an employer to conclude whether a requested religious accommodation was an undue hardship; the employer must also consider other possible options.

Impact on Employers

Based on this decision, we anticipate an increase in religious accommodation requests and related litigation.  Employers should be aware that the previously widely applied “de minimis cost” test is no longer valid, and that “undue burden” should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all factors relevant to whether a requested religious accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in conducting their business.  Employers should also engage in an interactive process to determine other possible options if the requested accommodation is determined to result in undue burden. 

The Court declined to adopt in toto the current guidance on religious accommodation from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the EEOC has not had the opportunity to benefit from the Court’s clarification provided in Groff.  We anticipate the EEOC will provide more or amended guidance on this topic in light of Groff.