BREAKING: Supreme Court Ruling in Groff v. Dejoy Clarifies Religious Accommodation Requirements under Title VII

[dc]T[/dc]his morning, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Groff v. Dejoy that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting the accommodation would result in substantial costs concerning the conduct of its particular business. The Court rejected the dicta in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) that some courts had interpreted to mean that employers could deny accommodation if accommodation required anything more than a “de minimis” cost or effort. It replaced it with a  “substantial cost” standard that is consistent with Title VII.

The Supreme Court did not define the types of religious accommodation or what would constitute a sufficient burden to deny accommodation but left the “context-specific” issues to the lower courts. The Court did state that bias or hostility to a religious practice is not a valid undue hardship defense “to a reasonable accommodation claim.” Additionally, the impact on coworkers is not in and of itself an “undue hardship” but should be addressed in the context of the impact on business.

In the case of postal worker Gerald Groff, the Court essentially reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the case and asked the lower court to examine the particular circumstances of the case.

This case does not forge a new pathway for accommodation but rather clarifies existing obligations under Title VII and provides consistent guidance to the lower courts by repairing an issue with the Court’s decision in Hardison.

As a practical matter, employers should inventory and perhaps even consider using an “interactive process” to determine whether religious accommodation is possible. Dismissing religious accommodation requests without seriously considering accommodation options is no longer enough. Employers and employees considering religious accommodation requests should consult with attorneys who can provide specific legal advice.

Founders’ First Freedom filed an amicus brief in support of the clarification that the Court made today.