On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, issued an opinion in Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, which imposes a higher burden on employers to accommodate their religious employees. Under federal law, employers must now prove the burden of granting accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact, Justice Samuel Alito writes, penning the Court’s opinion. This is a striking divergence from the prior “more than … de minimis” standards that lower courts had previously applied, which is now overruled. The result is that employers will have a substantial burden in proving that they should not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.
FACTS OF GROFF V. DEJOY
In Groff v. DeJoy, Gerald E. Groff was an Evangelical Christian working for the United States Postal Service ("USPS") who believed for religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. Groff received “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays, and after resigning, Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 asserting that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.”
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND PRIOR PRECEDENT
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars religious discrimination. Under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” In Groff, the Supreme Court clarified what Title VII requires, explaining the contours of TWA v. Hardison, which previously held an employer did not have to provide accommodation if the accommodation would cause more than a de minimis cost to them.
THE SUPREME COURT IN GROFF V. DEJOY OVERRULES THE 1977 DE MINIMIS STANDARD FOR UNDUE HARDSHIP
In Groff, the Supreme Court overruled the long time de minimis standard of the 1977 TWA v. Hardison case, referring to the “mistaken view of Hardison’s holding” having an “erroneous de minimis interpretation.” The unanimous opinion Justice Samuel Alito authored held that showing “more than a de minimis cost” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. The burden must be substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. The Court defined “hardship” at a minimum, is “something hard to bear”, and more severe than a mere burden. It clarified that an employer could not escape liability simply by showing that an accommodation would impose some sort of additional costs. Those costs would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding the modifier “undue” means that the requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level. The Court emphasized what matters is that Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation(s).
Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought it is appropriate to leave it to the lower courts to apply the clarified context-specific standard and to decide whether any further factual development was needed. It thus vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The USPS spokesperson, Felicia Lott, said in a statement: “We agree with the Supreme Court’s clarification, which accepts the arguments we made before the Court, and which is fully consistent with the standard we apply when seeking to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices of our employees.” In fact, the USPS believes that providing the requested accommodation here would impose a substantial burden on the USPS, and the USPS is confident it will prevail when the case is remanded. Therefore, USPS intends to continue to pursue its position and believes it will succeed in the Third Circuit (where it had previously succeeded). You can read the opinion here.
WHAT EMPLOYERS MUST NOW SHOW
Although asked by Groff to instruct lower courts to rely on Americans with Disabilities Act case law to determine what undue hardship means, the Court declined to do this. Instead, the Court noted that existing guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in this area is already adequate and should be little changed and noted specifically the EEOC’s guidance explaining why no undue hardship is imposed by temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, or administrative costs.
An employer must now show the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business, taking into account all relevant factors, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, “size and operating cost of [an] employer.” The Court noted what is most important is that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the common sense manner that it would use in applying any such test. Although Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business”, the Court noted not all impacts (of providing an accommodation) on coworkers are relevant, but only coworker impacts that go on to affect the conduct of the business. For example, an employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue;” however an employee’s animosity to a particular religion cannot be considered “undue.”
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EMPLOYERS TO CONSULT WITH EMPLOYMENT LAW ATTORNEYS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW LAW
The Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy increases the standard for employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices. The prior standard of showing “more than a de minimis cost” has effectively been raised to a notably higher threshold after Groff, and will undoubtedly be a much more difficult standard for employers to meet in aiming to deny religious accommodations.
Thus, it is important employers consult with their employment law attorneys to determine how best to implement and approach compliance with this new law, such as updating their employee handbooks, reviewing policies and procedures, evaluating current accommodation standards, and implementing new accommodation standards.
Please reach out to the authors or your Gordon & Rees Employment Law team for further guidance and recommendations.
The team would like to credit Law Clerk Kacie Cunningham for her contributions to this article.