The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision in the case Groff v. DeJoy that modified the standard in which employers must meet before denying an employee’s request for religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers should become familiar with this new standard before denying any such request for religious accommodation to ensure compliance with the law.

Previously, courts have held that employers were not required to provide religious accommodations if doing so would cause them more than a “de minimis” cost.  Now, however, following the Groff decision, to prove that granting the accommodation would pose an “undue hardship” when denying a request for a religious accommodation, an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would be substantial in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Essentially, this means that employers must show that a greater burden or impact on the business would be caused by granting an accommodation than it would have in the past prior to denying such a request under Title VII.

Background: What Title VII Says About Religious Accommodations

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and other “protected class group” membership, such as race, color, sex, and national origin. The Act ensures equal opportunities for and fair treatment to all individuals in the workplace. Employees enjoy similar protections, and employers are subject to similar prohibitions, as those imposed by Title VII, federally, under comparable state laws, such as Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code in Ohio.

Under Title VII and comparable state laws, employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on business operations. “Reasonable accommodation” is defined as an adjustment to the work environment or job duties that allows the employee to engage in a religious practice or observance. Examples of accommodations may include flexible scheduling, dress code adjustments, or granting time off for religious observance.

While employers are generally obligated to provide religious accommodations, they are not required to do so if it would cause an undue hardship on their business. What constitutes an “undue hardship” sufficient enough to justify the denial of such accommodation has been defined by the courts, and it is this standard that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) redefines in Groff.

Previously: The “De Minimus” Standard

Previously, in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 1977, SCOTUS held that Title VII did not require an employer to accommodate a worker’s religious Sabbath by excusing him from Saturday shifts in violation of seniority rights granted by a relevant collective bargaining agreement. In this case, the Court reached its conclusion, in part, because of the applicability of collective bargaining and seniority rights afforded under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, stating that Title VII did not require “an employer and a union who have agreed on a seniority system to deprive senior employees of their seniority rights in order to accommodate a junior employee’s religious practices.”

However, the Court also discussed financial aspects, noting that accommodation is not required when it entails “substantial” costs or expenditures and stating that “to require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.” Many courts have followed suit by defining “undue hardship” in the context of Title VII. An interpretation of this was also adopted by the EEOC in its guidance documents in the 2021 “Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination,” stating that “Title VII’s undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation has been defined by the Supreme Court as requiring a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses ‘more than a de minimis’ cost or burden.”

Now: Undue Hardship Standard Redefined

Nearly 50 years after SCOTUS’ decision in the Hardison case, the Groff Court reviewed a case involving the Title VII undue hardship standard whereby a postal worker sought accommodation for a religious Sabbath, requesting that he be excused from Sunday work.

Lower courts applied the de minimus standard and determined that accommodating the employee’s request for Sundays off would cause an undue hardship for the postal service. SCOTUS, however, overruled the lower courts, stating that the de minimus line from the Hardison case had been taken out of context and that, “although this line would later be viewed by many lower courts as the authoritative interpretation of the statutory term ‘undue hardship,’ it is doubtful that it was meant to take on that large role.”

Instead, SCOTUS stated that, to demonstrate that providing an accommodation would impose an undue hardship, an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would be substantial in the overall context of its business. The case was then remanded to the trial court for application of SCOTUS’ newly articulated standard to the facts of the case.

What This Means for Employers

Before denying an accommodation request, employers must now be able to demonstrate more than a de minimus burden on the business to prove that granting an accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the business. In practical application, this means that employers should take greater care when reviewing and denying religious accommodation requests to ensure that it can meet this higher “undue hardship” burden. Employers will likely be required to approve more requests than they may have in the past. Employers may also see an increase in the number of workers requesting religious accommodations as well.

Many employers will need to review and update their religious accommodation procedures. A knowledgeable business attorney can assist employers in evaluating and revamping their current policies, training relevant personnel to evaluate accommodation requests in accordance with the new hardship standard, and identifying potential accommodations that can be made in compliance with this newly articulated standard while minimizing the impact of such an accommodation on business operations.