Supreme Court Imposes Tougher Standard on Employers for Workplace Religious Accommodations
In a groundbreaking unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that employers may not deny a religious accommodation to employees under Title VII simply because it imposes a “de minimis” cost, which was the standard for 50 years since it was established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Rather, the Court ruled that Title VII requires an employer who denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would sustain “substantial increased costs” in relation to the conduct of its business. This brings religious accommodations under Title VII in line with other anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which similarly defines undue hardship in making an accommodation as “significant difficulty or expense.”
In the case decided by the Court, Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian, sought an accommodation for his religious beliefs from his employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS). Groff joined USPS as a mail delivery worker in 2012, a position that historically did not involve Sunday work. However, when USPS began facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon, Groff’s schedule changed, and he faced the possibility of working on Sundays. To adhere to his religious beliefs, Groff transferred to a rural USPS office that did not handle Sunday deliveries. Unfortunately for Groff, Amazon deliveries were eventually introduced at that office as well, and he again requested off on Sundays.
As a result, USPS redistributed Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other staff members, while Groff received progressive discipline for refusing to work on Sundays. Ultimately, Groff resigned from his position due to the ongoing conflict. Subsequently, he filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that USPS could have reasonably accommodated his religious practice without causing undue hardship to their operations.
The trial court, however, ruled in favor of USPS, and the Third Circuit upheld the decision. The court referred to the precedent set in Hardison, which stated in one fleeting and oft-quoted sentence that an employer should not be burdened with more than a “de minimis cost” to provide religious-based accommodations. Relying on this standard, the Third Circuit decided that excusing Groff from Sunday work imposed an undue hardship on USPS by disrupting the workplace dynamics and diminishing employee morale.
Groff appealed the Third Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court to reconsider the “de minimis” test under Hardison, asking it to clarify the standard to mean something more than a small and trivial cost. The Court agreed and held in unanimous fashion that the “more than a de minimis cost” standard established in the wake of Hardison mistook what it meant to impose an undue hardship. The Court noted that, while Hardison made references to de minimis costs, the entire context of the decision suggested that the costs must be “substantial.” Moreover, the terms “undue” and “hardship” implies a degree of severity beyond a mere burden, and instead suggests an excessive or unjustifiable level of adversity.
The Court therefore reversed the judgement against Groff and instructed the lower courts to apply a revised standard which maintains the structure created by Hardison but excises the misplaced focus on de minimis costs. Specifically, the Court commanded that Title VII does not require employers to provide religious accommodations if the burden of granting the accommodation will result in “substantial increased costs relative to the employer’s business operations.” When applying this new rule, the Court opined that all relevant factors should be taken into account, including the particular accommodations at issue, their practical impact, and the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer.
The Court also noted that, under the updated standard, an accommodation’s impact on co-workers may be considered when evaluating its impact on the business, but a co-worker’s bias or hostility towards a particular religion or religious practice can never be deemed “undue.” Also, the Court emphasized that Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of an employee’s proposed accommodation without exploring alternative options.
The Court’s decision in Groff has overnight dramatically changed how employers assess religious accommodation requests. Employers should no longer focus on whether an accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost, as that metric no longer applies. Instead, employers must explore whether the proposed accommodation (and other alternatives) would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Employers should take immediate action to ensure the Groff standard is reflected in their internal policies for evaluating religious accommodations.
Please contact Matthew Perez or any member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team if you have questions or need advice or guidance.
