In a rare unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the long-standing interpretation of Title VII that an employer may deny a religious accommodation when the requested accommodation would impose more than a de minimis, or trifling, burden on the employer's business.
The case, Groff v. DeJoy, concerned US postal worker Gerald Groff, who sought exemption from Sunday work shifts because of his religious belief that Sundays should "be devoted to worship and rest" rather than "secular labor." After being dismissed from his employer for refusing Sunday work, he brought a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII.
Title VII, which applies to US employers with 15 or more employees, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs unless the accommodation would pose undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.
The decision concluded that federal anti-discrimination law requires an employer to show that “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
However, the Court declined to go further and apply the framework of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which defines undue hardship as "significant difficulty or expense," to the religious accommodation context. Instead, undue hardship simply "means what it says," and courts should take a common-sense approach in applying this standard.
Going forward, employers may face increased requests for time off, job reassignments, modifications to dress codes and grooming policies, scheduling changes, prayer breaks, and designations of private locations in the workplace for religious observances.
Employers should:
- Engage in a cooperative and interactive communication with employees when they request a religious accommodation. Read more about the interactive process and accommodation requests on a recent blog here.
- Follow up with the employee at regular intervals to see if the accommodation is working out for them.
- If you deny a request, provide written reasoning for the decision so your standpoint is clear.
- Identify any recent religious accommodations (whether granted or denied) and determine (with the help of legal counsel) whether you need to adjust any decisions you have made.
- Be prepared to address any workplace resentment or disruption that could arise from granting religious accommodations to some employees – while protecting those employees receiving accommodations from retaliation.
- Consider any state and local laws that create additional obligations regarding religious accommodations.
Also of note, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently posted its charge data for FY 2022 (October 2021 through September 2022). The most noteworthy development was the rise of religious discrimination claims, which increased from 2,111 in FY 2021 to 13,814 in FY 2022—a 554 percent increase. Charges based on religious discrimination claims represented 18.8 percent of the total charges filed with the EEOC in 2022. This increase was likely due to regulations and policies regarding COVID-19 vaccines. We’ll see with the recent Supreme Court decision if this rising trend will continue.
Reach out to your FrankAdvice HR Consultant and legal counsel as needed for guidance.