Supreme Court hears Arguments on Case Poised to Alter Employers’ Religious Accommodation Obligations

24 April 2023 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Victoria Stockton Breese

On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a high-profile case seeking to alter employers’ obligations to accommodate workers’ religious observances. Federal law currently requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs — unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” for the employer. Examples of religious accommodations include allowing time off on religious holidays, permitting employees to wear religious dress, or designating a place for employees to pray at work. And in the COVID-19 era, we have discussed vaccine exemptions as another possible religious accommodation at work.

The case recently heard before the Supreme Court, Groff v. Dejoy, may alter the current standard for what constitutes an “undue hardship” for an employer in this context. 

Religious Accommodation Case Background

Almost a half-century ago, the Supreme Court stated that an “undue hardship” need not be more than a de minimus amount (i.e., small amount) in order for an employer to lawfully refuse such an accommodation. Over the years, parties such as the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have pushed for exceptions or adjustments to this standard. With the Groff case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to modify the long-standing requirement that an undue hardship need only be de minimus.

In the current case, Groff, a former postal worker, sued the United States Postal Service for religious discrimination. An Evangelical Christian, Groff argued that his former employer discriminated against him when it refused to allow him to take Sundays off. According to Groff, his sincerely held religious beliefs require him to take a weekly Sabbath day off of work.

In the lower courts, Mr. Groff lost twice. First, a federal district judge rejected Groff’s argument that the Postal Service’s failure to accommodate his request constituted religious discrimination. Then, Groff appealed to the Third Circuit, which upheld the district court’s decision. The Third Circuit found that allowing Groff Sundays off would constitute an undue hardship on coworkers who would need to work extra shifts. Therefore, the Postal Service did not have to accommodate Groff’s request.

Religious Discrimination Issues Before the Supreme Court

The case presents two issues for the Supreme Court to decide. First, the Court must decide whether the “more-than-de minimus” test for undue hardship is appropriate. Next, the Court must decide whether an employer can demonstrate “undue hardship” with evidence of a burden on employee’s coworkers, rather than hardship on the employer’s business itself. How the Court decides these questions will determine whether employers must change their religious accommodations policies in order to comply with federal law.

Supreme Court’s Reaction to the Case

In the arguments before the Court, the Justices made several comments and questions while weighing each side’s argument. For example, Justice Alito suggested that it would not cost the Postal Service that much money to hire another worker to cover Sundays. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor stressed the resulting burden on other employees if Groff were permitted Sundays off.

Justice Barrett asked Groff’s attorney to give an example of the effect on coworkers if Groff’s request were granted. The lawyer mentioned that other coworkers could quit. Justice Jackson said that the circumstances of each case matter when determining undue hardship. Perhaps most telling, Justice Gorsuch stated that some courts have taken the “de minimus” language too far, and stated that “that’s wrong and we all agree that’s wrong.”

Employers Should Be Aware of Potential Change to Religious Accommodation Law

Employers subject to Title VII should stay alert to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in this case. Depending on how the Court decides, employers’ policies and practices regarding religious accommodation requests may need to be adjusted for continued legal compliance. We will keep you posted.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services