Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it obligates employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice unless doing so creates an undue hardship. In July 2023, the Supreme Court decided Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), and clarified what constitutes an “undue hardship” in the Title VII religious accommodation context.

For decades, the focus has been on whether the religious accommodation would require the employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost” and, if so, it constituted an undue hardship. The “de minimis” standard was a low bar, and in many cases permitted employers to deny religious accommodations that had relatively minor implications on their businesses. The Groff decision raised the “undue hardship” threshold and abrogated the “de minimis” test, bringing it more in line with the test for accommodation in the disability context under the ADA.

Groff was a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service (USPS). In March 2017, USPS began requiring Groff (and other employees) to work Sundays to facilitate Amazon deliveries. Groff, an Evangelical Christian, observed Sunday as a sabbath and refused to work. While USPS reassigned Groff’s responsibilities to others, it also disciplined Groff, ultimately resulting in his resignation in 2019. Groff later sued under Title VII for failure to accommodate.

The Supreme Court determined that “hardship” for purposes of assessing the feasibility of a religious accommodation is more severe than a mere burden; rather, it is “something hard to bear.” For the hardship to be “undue” means the hardship must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level. Under the new test articulated by the Supreme Court in Groff, the test requires “an employer [to] show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The test is fact-specific in nature and will require courts and employers to assess “all relevant factors” in each particular case, including the accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating costs of an employer. 

The Groff decision has significant implications for employers and places a heavier burden on employers who deny requests for religious accommodation. The default should not be to deny the accommodation. Instead, when faced with a request for religious accommodation, all relevant factors should be considered, including, for example, whether the accommodation would cause sustained, increased monetary costs or decreased efficiency, whether it would detrimentally affect other employees’ schedules or day-to-day work life, and/or whether the accommodation would pose health or safety risks. The employer should only deny the accommodation if it can point to concrete and substantial increased costs or other hardships that are excessive or unjustifiable. 

Employers should promptly provide training for employees involved with religious accommodation decisions. Spilman’s labor and employment attorneys are available to assist employers in avoiding pitfalls while promoting a religiously diverse workforce.