Posted by HLL Admin

In June 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Groff v. DeJoy, a case that significantly shapes the landscape of religious accommodations in the workplace. The unanimous ruling underscored the rights of employees seeking religious accommodations. It particularly focused on a Christian mail carrier’s right to decline work on Sundays. While the Court retained the 1977 precedent that allows employers to deny accommodations imposing more than “de minimis” costs, it introduced a “clarified standard,” reshaping how lower courts evaluate undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Background of the Religious Accommodations Case

At the heart of the case is Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian mail carrier who objected to working on Sundays following the Postal Service’s agreement with Amazon for Sunday package deliveries. Despite previous exemptions, Groff’s transfer to a station with Sunday deliveries led to, in the Court’s view, a denial of religious accommodation. The subsequent disciplinary action and Groff’s resignation triggered a federal lawsuit, alleging a violation of Title VII.

Legal Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their religion. It requires reasonable accommodation unless it results in “undue hardship” on the business. The 1977 precedent set by the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison defined “undue hardship” as an accommodation causing more than a “de minimis” cost.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, delivered a unanimous decision that both supported the precedent and introduced a “clarified standard” for lower courts. While maintaining the core concept of “undue hardship,” the Court emphasized that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

Under the clarified standard, courts are urged to evaluate whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in a commonsense manner. The focus is on substantial increased costs, a departure from the strict “de minimis” standard set more than 45 years ago. The Court emphasized that it’s not enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, is deemed necessary.

Implications of the Decision for Employers and Workers

This decision has significant implications for religious accommodations in the workplace. Employers, when faced with requests like Groff’s, must carefully consider alternatives beyond a strict interpretation of costs. This shift from a strict “de minimis” standard could encourage employers to explore creative solutions that accommodate employees’ religious practices while maintaining business operations.

Groff v. DeJoy is part of a broader trend where the conservative Supreme Court has favored religious parties in recent decisions. In its last term, the Court sided with a former high school football coach punished for praying on the field after games, and found that schools providing religious instruction couldn’t be excluded from a tuition assistance program in Maine.

Be Prepared to Make Reasonable Accommodations Within the Law

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy reaffirms the importance of religious accommodations in the workplace. The “clarified standard” introduces flexibility for employers to consider alternative solutions, emphasizing a commonsense approach to evaluating undue hardship.

In navigating the complex terrain of employment law, civil rights, and discrimination cases, having expert legal counsel is crucial. Hughes Lawyers, with its specialization in these areas, stands ready to provide personalized guidance. For tailored legal solutions aligned with the evolving legal landscape, reach out to Hughes Lawyers today.