The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer who claims “undue hardship” as the reason for denying a worker’s request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must be able to show it would incur “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This significantly raises the bar for establishing undue hardship in religious accommodation cases, which courts previously interpreted to mean any effort or cost that is more than “de minimis” (minimal). The Supreme Court defined simple “hardship” as “something hard to bear,” so an “undue hardship” is even greater – it “means that the requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an ‘excessive’ or ‘unjustifiable’ level.”
This case involved a rural letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) who refused to work on Sundays based on his religious belief that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest. The USPS was short-staffed in the area and determined that accommodating the letter carrier’s religious practices by assigning other people to work on Sundays would violate the seniority rights of coworkers under the collective bargaining agreement.
The Court said that simply rejecting one proposed accommodation isn’t good enough—the duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief includes exploring other options, which in this case might include seeking volunteers to swap shifts or paying some people overtime. When weighing whether a particular accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the Supreme Court said courts must take into account all relevant factors by considering the practical impact of the accommodations, including the nature, size, and operating costs of the business. The Court noted, however, that a coworker’s or customer’s dislike of an employee’s religious practice is irrelevant in assessing undue hardship because if employers were to give in to those dislikes, they would be engaging in religious discrimination. The Court sent the case back down to a lower court to decide whether excusing the letter carrier from work on Sundays would pose an undue hardship to USPS under the newly clarified standard (Groff v. DeJoy, US, June 2023).
Tips: When defining “undue hardship” for religious accommodation under Title VII, the Court declined to copy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which defines undue hardship for a disability accommodation as “significant difficulty or expense.” In practice, though, we anticipate the analysis of undue hardship will require a similar level of effort under both laws. The Court’s new standard won’t have much of an impact in California and Oregon, because their state employment laws on religious discrimination already apply an ADA-like standard of “significant difficulty or expense” in evaluating undue hardship for religious accommodations.
Interestingly, the Court said that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s regulations on religious discrimination (29 CFR Part 1605) may not require much updating, because the agency (whose mission is to advocate for employee rights) was historically applying the old “de minimis” standard in an employee-friendly way that is fairly close to the Supreme Court’s clarified standard. We will be updating our Legal Guide, Religious Accommodation in the Workplace to address the Court’s decision. If you’re concerned that a worker’s request for religious accommodation may cause an undue hardship to your business, contact your Vigilant Law Group employment attorney for specific advice.
