Earlier today the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, No. 22-174, clarifying the “undue burden” standard under applicable to religious accommodations under Title VII after nearly 50 years. Specifically, the Court held that Title VII requires an employer who denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This raises the standard applicable from the previous, long established “more than a de minimis cost” standard. Going forward, employers must be aware of the heightened standard for defending against claims for religious discrimination involving failure to accommodate under Title VII.
In the case before the Court, Gerald Groff, a former employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS), sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the USPS failed to accommodate his religious observance. Groff had requested to be off on Sundays, his chosen Sabbath. Groff alleged that the USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of USPS’ business.” The District Court granted summary judgement in favor of the USPS, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on appeal, finding that the USPS would have suffered an undue hardship because it would have been required to bear more than a de minimis cost to provide Groff’s religious accommodation. In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit relied on the prior Supreme Court opinion, Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63. Groff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Under the facts before them, the Supreme Court chose to clarify the contours of Hardison, explaining that Hardison does not compel courts to read the “more than a de minimis cost” as the governing standard. The Court explained that although the Hardison Court stated that an employer who bears more than a de minimis costs suffers an undue hardship, the case cannot be reduced to that one phrase. To the contrary, the Court emphasized how the Hardison Court also described that an accommodation is not required when it entails “substantial . . . costs” or “expenditures.” In support of its opinion, the Court also referred to the statutory text of Title VII, explaining that the text suggests something more severe than a mere de minimis cost.
Lastly, the Groff opinion also clarifies other recurring issues under Title VII. First, the Court explained that Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect “on the conduct of the employer’s business” and that impacts on coworkers are relevant to the extent that those impacts effect the conduct of the business. Second, for an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice under Title VII, it must do more than simply assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. An employer must consider other possible options.
Lastly, the Groff opinion also clarifies other recurring issues under Title VII. First, the Court explained that Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect “on the conduct of the employer’s business” and that impacts on coworkers are relevant to the extent that those impacts effect the conduct of the business. Second, for an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice under Title VII, it must do more than simply asses the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. An employer must consider other possible options.
In sum, following Groff, if an employer’s denial of a religious accommodation is challenged, the employer must establish that the burden of granting the religious accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.