SCOTUS Announces Tougher Standard for Rejecting Religious Accommodation Requests, Leaves Details to Lower Courts
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.