Washington, D.C. (July 5, 2023) – Title VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 generally requires employers to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs. However, employers are not obligated to do so where the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on their business operations. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers could avoid having to provide an accommodation if doing so would impose "more than a de minimis cost" or burden. Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977). The decades that followed have seen copious litigation about what more than de minimis means in this context.
Groff v. DeJoy - Clarification of Undue Hardship Test
The Supreme Court has now clarified that more than de minimis means something more onerous than most federal courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have assumed. In Groff v. DeJoy, decided on June 29, 2023, the Court issued a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Alito, holding that the statutory language did not justify a standard under which even a trivial cost would be sufficient to deny an accommodation. The Court held that "showing 'more than a de minimis cost,' as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish 'undue hardship' under Title VII" because the undue hardship must entail substantial additional costs or substantial expenditures in order to justify denial of the accommodation. According to the Court, "'undue hardship' is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business."
The employer in Groff, the United States Postal Service (USPS), argued that it would be subject to an undue hardship if it had to require other employees to handle additional Sunday shifts in order to ensure that the plaintiff, a mail carrier, would not have to work on Sundays in violation of his Evangelical Christian beliefs. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the employer showed that the accommodations would impose more than a de minimis cost. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed, concluding that the employer had to consider other options that would enable it to provide the requested accommodation. It held, "The Third Circuit assumed that Hardison prescribed a 'more than a de minimis cost' test, and this may have led the court to dismiss a number of possible accommodations, including those involving the cost of incentive pay, or the administrative costs of coordination with other nearby stations with a broader set of employees."
The Court remanded the matter so that the district could adjudicate the case in line with the newly clarified "context-specific" governing standard. Given that the USPS is the defendant, it seems likely that the cost of accommodating this employee would not be deemed substantial in the overall context of this employer's business.
Moreover, it is expected that the EEOC will modify its regulations and guidance in light of the Court's clarification of the standard. Notably, the Court's decision states that the EEOC's current interpretation is "sensible" in large part, but it is nonetheless impacted by its revised analysis of the standard.
The Groff decision also held that hostility to religion in general or to a particular religion cannot support an employer's decision as to what constitutes an undue hardship. The Court stated, "An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is 'undue,' and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered 'undue.'"
Note that, notwithstanding this decision, it remains more difficult for an employer to show an "undue hardship" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) than for a proposed religious accommodation under Title VII. Under the ADA, "undue hardship" means that the proposed accommodation imposes a significant expense or difficulty when factors such as an employer's size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation are considered.
Groff's Implications for Employers
The takeaway for employers is that knee-jerk rejections of proposed accommodation requests based on religious practice and observance are perilous. The employer faced with an accommodation request from an employee or applicant must assess whether it will actually incur substantial additional costs or expenditures from granting the accommodation. Because the decision will always be context-specific, there is no bright-line rule or threshold dollar amount that employers can look to as one-size-fits-all guidance.
Employers may need to revisit their existing accommodation policies or adopt new policies to ensure compliance with the newly clarified standard. Lewis Brisbois' employment lawyers are available to assist employers in drafting and revising such policies and addressing accommodation requests as they arise.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
