After Groff v. DeJoy (2023), employers must show written evidence if they deny a religious accommodation request. Courts will expect documentation of what was requested, how it was evaluated, and why it was denied—if it was. Vague concerns or undocumented conversations won’t satisfy the legal standard. Employers should adopt clear procedures, keep detailed records, and handle all requests through a consistent, transparent process. This isn’t just about compliance. It’s about creating a system that treats belief with the seriousness the law now requires.
In Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the Supreme Court unanimously held that employers cannot deny an employee’s request for religious accommodation unless they can prove that granting the request would impose a substantial burden on the business. The burden of proof is now squarely on the employer—and it is a burden that must be documented.
Verbal explanations and general concerns no longer meet the legal standard. If an employer denies an accommodation, they need to show why, in detail. Courts will ask: What were the costs? Who was affected? What alternatives were considered? If those answers are not in writing, they may not hold up.
This shift in law has transformed religious accommodation from a discretionary management decision into a regulated compliance issue. And compliance always starts with documentation.
Why Documentation Matters
When a religious accommodation request is granted, documentation creates a clear record of what was agreed upon and when. If the accommodation later becomes unworkable, that history helps explain the employer’s reasoning. If the request is denied, documentation is not just helpful—it is essential.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a court will not rely on memory or hearsay. They will ask for:
-
A copy of the employee’s request
-
Notes on when it was received
-
Internal communications evaluating the request
-
Records of any conversations or meetings
-
A written explanation of the decision, including evidence of hardship if the request was denied
Without this paper trail, even a well-reasoned decision can appear arbitrary.
What Should Be Documented
To comply with Groff, employers should ensure they are consistently documenting:
1. The Initial Request
-
Who made the request
-
What the employee asked for
-
The specific belief or practice involved
-
When and how the request was submitted
Even informal conversations should be followed up with an email or memo confirming the substance of the discussion.
2. The Internal Review Process
-
Which supervisors or HR staff were involved
-
What operational concerns were raised
-
Whether the employer considered alternative accommodations
-
Any input from coworkers or teams affected by the request
This shows that the request was evaluated seriously and not dismissed without consideration.
3. The Decision
-
Whether the accommodation was granted or denied
-
If denied, a specific explanation of the hardship involved
-
Any measurable impact on operations, including financial cost, scheduling difficulties, or disruption to essential services
-
How that impact rises to the level of “substantial” as required by the Court
Vague statements like “it would be difficult” or “this sets a bad precedent” are not legally sufficient.
4. Ongoing Monitoring
If the accommodation is granted, employers should continue to document:
-
Whether it remains workable over time
-
Any changes requested by the employee
-
Any complaints or complications raised by others
-
Any modifications made to the arrangement
If circumstances change and the accommodation can no longer be supported, that change must also be explained in writing.
What Employers Can Learn from Disability Law
Many employers already have systems in place for documenting disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The standard set in Groff is similar in its demand for written, defensible justification. What the ADA is to physical and mental conditions, Groff now is to religion in terms of the need to maintain documentation.
Religious belief is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But without documentation, even legitimate reasons for denying accommodation can appear discriminatory. Employers should treat religious accommodation requests with the same care and rigor as other legal obligations to avoid surprises in litigation.
Commentary
Groff introduced a higher standard, but not an unmanageable one. Employers are not required to overhaul their operations. They are required to show their work.
The expectation is not perfection. It is process. Employers who follow a consistent review system, keep records, and explain their reasoning will be in a strong position—even if they ultimately deny a request. Those who make informal decisions based on impressions, assumptions, or off-the-cuff conversations are taking unnecessary risks.
Documentation is not just a legal shield. It is a way to bring fairness and transparency into what can otherwise become tense or unclear conversations. When employees see that their request was taken seriously and handled within a defined process, they are more likely to accept the outcome—even if it’s not what they hoped for.
Case Info: Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf
Like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for workplace law updates, case analysis, and tools for navigating religious accommodations.
Subscribers receive detailed breakdowns of new legal standards, compliance guides, and timely alerts on active cases.
