By Patricia Anderson Pryor, Katharine C. Weber, Andrew F. Maunz & Tara K. Burke with Jackson Lewis P.C.
The U.S. Supreme Court has “clarified” and changed the religious accommodation standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have relied upon for more than 46 years. Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023).
Under the new standard, “‘undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
Background
Under Title VII, employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs or observances conflict with work requirements, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Absent a statutory definition of “undue hardship,” courts have relied on the Court’s decision in TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), for the last 46 years to determine the parameters of the term. In Hardison, the Court stated that requiring an employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give [an employee] Saturdays off is an undue hardship.”
In Groff v. DeJoy, former United States Postal Service (USPS) mail carrier Gerald Groff claimed he was unlawfully denied his requested religious accommodation to not work Sundays. (Some of us remember the days when there was no mail or deliveries on Sunday.)
The USPS tried to find other carriers to cover Groff’s Sunday shifts, but, because of a shortage of rural carriers, efforts often failed. Groff requested that the USPS exempt him from Sunday work, but the USPS declined, stating his requested accommodation would lead to undue hardship for the USPS.
A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, concluding that exempting Groff from working on Sundays would burden his coworkers, disrupt the workplace and workflow, diminish morale, and damage the USPS’s operations.
Supreme Court Decision
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court changed the test.
According to the Court, it now “understands Hardison to mean that ‘undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” This is a significant change from what the EEOC and courts have stated, and on which employers have relied, for years. The Court declined to incorporate the undue hardship test under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires significant difficulty and expense.
The Court also declined to determine what facts would meet this new test and remanded the case back to the lower court to decide, setting up what likely will be years of legal battles with courts attempting to apply this new standard.
The Court however 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.” According to the Court, “Courts must apply the test to take into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer.”
If you’d like to speak to an HR expert about your business, connect with us.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (“FIRM”) PROVIDES THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST FOR GENERAL INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS POST SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON OR REGARDED AS, LEGAL ADVICE. NO ONE ACCESSING OR REVIEWING THIS POST, WHETHER OR NOT A CURRENT CLIENT OF THE FIRM, SHOULD ACT OR REFRAIN FROM ACTING ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONTENT OR INFORMATION, WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH AND ENGAGING A QUALIFIED, LICENSED ATTORNEY, AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW IN SUCH PERSON’S PARTICULAR STATE, CONCERNING THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER AT ISSUE. THE POST MAY NOT REFLECT CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, OR LAWS OR RULES THAT MAY APPLY IN PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS. THE FIRM AND ITS LAWYERS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BASED ON ANY OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OR INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THIS SITE. ANY INFORMATION ABOUT PRIOR RESULTS ATTAINED BY THE FIRM OR ITS LAWYERS IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY THAT A SIMILAR OUTCOME WILL BE ACHIEVED.
THE FIRM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT, OPERATION, LINKS OR TRANSMISSIONS, OR ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON ANY OTHER PART OF ASURE SOFTWARE, INC.’S WEBSITE OR ANY THIRD-PARTY WEBSITE WHICH MAY BE ACCESSED BY A LINK FROM THIS WEBSITE.
NOTHING PROVIDED BY THE FIRM IS INTENDED TO FORM, AND WILL NOT CREATE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
THIS POST MAY BE CONSIDERED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING UNDER THE RULES OF SOME STATES. THE HIRING OF AN ATTORNEY IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION THAT SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS.
STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES, LAWYERS RESIDENT IN THE FIRM’S VARIOUS OFFICES ARE NOT CERTIFIED BY THE TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION.