In its unanimous June 29 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S Supreme Court disrupted decades of precedent in ruling that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer that rejects a religious accommodation request on the basis of “undue hardship” must prove a burden well beyond a “de minimis cost.” The employer must establish that the rejected accommodation requires “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business.” The Court further clarified that a negative impact on co-workers resulting from the requested accommodation does not automatically qualify the accommodation as an “undue hardship.” The new test must be satisfied whether the “substantial increased costs” result from an impact on co-workers or otherwise.
The case concerns a postal worker, Gerald Groff, who objected to working on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. When the U.S. Postal Service’s attempt to accommodate Groff by facilitating shift swaps eventually failed, Groff received progressive discipline for unexcused absences on his Sunday shifts, ultimately resulting in his resignation. Notably, Groff’s assignment to Sunday shifts was not at the discretion of the Postal Service but was done in accordance with an agreement with the union that represented Groff and his peers.
Prior to the Groff decision, federal courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had long applied an employer-friendly standard under which a religious accommodation posed an “undue burden” if it imposed “more than a de minimis cost” on the employer. In finding against Groff on the basis that allowing him to take Sundays off would cause an undue hardship to the Postal Service, the district court and Court of Appeals had relied in part on the negative impact that Groff’s refusal to work Sundays had on his co-workers, some of whom were forced to work his missed shifts, to find that the relatively light “de minimis cost” standard had been met. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard needed to take another look.
How similar facts—or even these facts—will be analyzed by courts under the new standard is difficult to predict. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court expressly declined to provide detailed guidance as to how its new standard should be applied moving forward, leaving that task to the courts and the EEOC. It remanded Groff’s case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, meaning that even the final outcome of Groff’s case remains in doubt.
That said, it is clear that the new standard is significantly more demanding. Among other things, inconvenience to other employees alone may not be enough to constitute an undue burden in every situation. That does not mean that employers must provide any religious accommodation presented (such as missing days of work), regardless of the burden. If the employer is able to find a means of providing an effective accommodation due the religious practice—which in this context requires “eliminating the conflict” between the job requirement and the religious practice—then the employer will have met its duty to provide a reasonable accommodation, and the undue hardship may not come into play at all. If there is no reasonable accommodation available, at that point, the undue hardship analysis may become relevant. Employers are well-advised to consult with employment counsel to evaluate potential options.
Along the same lines, because the Court is applying its new standard retroactively, employers that have refused religious accommodations on the basis of undue hardship should consider re-evaluating those decisions with the assistance of counsel to ensure compliance moving forward.
We will be keeping a close eye on how this ruling is addressed by the courts and EEOC, and will keep you posted on any significant developments.
Editor’s Note: This article was written by Manolis Boulukos and Kayla Ernst of the law firm Ice Miller LLP and is published by AGC with permission. This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.