Employers Face A Heightened Standard for Proving “Undue Hardship” in Religious Accommodations Requests

In the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the Supreme Court clarified the standard that employers must use when deciding whether to grant an employee’s request for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII. sets forth protections for employees against employment discrimination that are based upon race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Further, under Title VII, employers must accommodate employees with accommodations for their religious requests unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” for the employer.

Up until Groff, the Supreme Court had interpreted “undue hardship” as being one that would impose even a “de minimis” cost for the employer. This interpretation of “undue hardship” stems from the 1977 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison case in which an employee requested workplace accommodations based upon his religious beliefs, and the Court held that requiring an employer to suffer more than a “de minimis cost” to accommodate such a request would place an undue hardship on the employer. However, the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling has now changed – and increased – the standard that an employer must meet to successfully argue that an employee’s religious accommodations request would result in an undue hardship.

In Groff, the Court held that showing “more than a de minimis cost” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023). In other words, just because the employer may incur additional costs in re-scheduling employees or changing the way they do business to accommodate an employees’ religious request, this alone does not equate to “undue hardship” and does not allow for the employer to deny such requests. The Court in Groff went on to clarify that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business” and noted that “this is a fact-specific inquiry.” In other words, “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” (underline added).

The change of language between the Trans World Airlines decision and Groff is markedly different. Whereas in Trans World Airlines the employer only needed to show that granting an accommodation would result in de minimis cost to itself, under the Groff decision, employers must show that accommodation the employee’s request for religious accommodations would result in substantial costs to its business.

Considering the Court’s ruling in Groff, there are at least a few steps employers may wish to take to avoid incurring liability down the road:

• First, employers should anticipate an increase in religious accommodations requests and be prepared to respond to them. Such religious requests may include scheduling changes, prayer breaks, modifications to dress codes and grooming standards, and perhaps even the request for a private room or location within the workplace for employees to observe religious practices.
• Second, if an employer denies an employees’ request for religious accommodations, the employer should provide their reasons for the denial in writing, making it clear why the request was denied.
• Third, and perhaps most important, be prepared to explain why a denial would impose a substantial cost on the way the employer conducts its business. Remember, the Court held in part that this part of the analysis would be a “fact-specific-inquiry.”

We not that the Court did not provide clear examples of how a “substantial cost” could be shown (thereby meeting the “undue hardship” requirement). An employer facing the issues presented in this article should seek legal counsel before they respond to a workplace religious request.