Among the bevy of U.S. Supreme Court opinions handed down last week, the Court ruled on what the undue hardship standard should mean within the context of accommodation for religious practice and belief. HR will have to re-evaluate how they handle requests for religious accommodation.

In the case of Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General (600 U.S.___2023) the U.S Supreme Court wrestled with the meaning of “undue hardship” and ruled that in the context of religious discrimination it means more than just a “de minimis” burden on the employer. Using the term de-minimis cost is “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”

So, what was this case all about? Gerald Groff was the plaintiff in this case. He took employment with the U.S. postal service in 2012. He was a devout Evangelical Christian that believed, for religious reasons, that working on Sunday was against his religious beliefs. At first his job did not require work on Sunday but as time went on the USPS took on Sunday deliveries.

Mr. Groff asked for and received an accommodation relieving him from Sunday work. To get this accommodation the USPS moved him to another station that did not require Sunday work at that time. This too changed, and even though the USPS tried to accommodate Mr. Groff, this accommodation would have conflicted with a collective bargaining agreement governing scheduling of work and assignments. It was determined by the USPS it could no longer accommodate Mr. Groff’s no Sunday work schedule because it would be an undue hardship on the USPS and fellow postal workers.

The USPS applied its progressive disciplinary policy to his refusal to work on Sundays as compelled by the collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Groff then resigned.

Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 asserting the USPS could and should have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice. Groff lost his first two cases based upon those Court’s opinion that under the circumstances of this case it would be an undue hardship. The Court pointed to precedent in a long-standing decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison 432 U.S 63. This is a 50-year-old case holding that if the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in a “de minimis increase in cost to the conduct of the business it would be unreasonable and the employer would be free to follow its determinations as to how much of an accommodation was within reason for it.

The high Court re-examined the Hardison decision to determine what “de minimis” burden means and held it was more than just a trifle cost. SCOTUS held undue hardship actually means “substantial additional costs” or “substantial expenditures.”

This considerably modifies the previously understood (or misunderstood) “de minimis” standard. Rather, it will require that an employer “must show undue hardship is a substantial burden in the overall context of an employer’s business.”

Unfortunately for us, the employers, the Court declined to determine what facts would meet this new standard and remanded the case back to the lower court to decide. In doing so, the Court opined, “A good deal of the EEOC’s guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by the Court’s clarifying decision.”

Going forward employers will have to look at issues involving religious discrimination and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as company size and the accommodation cost will have to be considered more particularly.

This undoubtedly means that there will be more religious discrimination claims going forward. Employers are advised to take a more serious look at requests for religious accommodation or risk being fodder for the EEOC and Court re-evaluation of where the accommodation line will be drawn.

Sources:

Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General (6/29/2023) No. 22-174 600 U.S ____ (2023)

Groff Take DeJoy:: U.S. Supreme Court Changes Standard in Religious Accommodation Case (6/29/2023)

Law 360 Employment Authority 3 Takeaways After Justices Tackle Religious Accommodation (6/29/2023)