Foley & Lardner LLP partner Donald Schroeder is quoted in the Law360 article, “3 Takeaways As EEOC Sheds Light On Groff’s Application,” offering insight on how the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will apply the religious accommodations test handed down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy.
Schroeder said a recent ruling by the EEOC may well be an important waypoint in how the Groff test gets assessed in federal courts.
“I think this is a precursor to case law being developed whereby you’ll get into the issue of the full scope of undue hardship and whether or not it’s this really high standard now or whether or not there’s some flexibility in that standard … [that’s] a little bit closer to where the standard was before,” Schroeder commented.
Schroeder noted that the EEOC’s stance that an evaluation of undue hardship does not have to be limited solely to the financial costs of a potential accommodation is an important clarification regarding how Groff should be interpreted.
“Groff really dealt with the issue of undue hardship and equating it to cost — that basically you’d have to show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [a] particular business,” Schroeder said. “It’s interesting that you now have the EEOC saying, ‘Well, wait a minute, actually undue hardship really can mean more than just costs. It’s the issue of whether or not something is reasonable in and of itself.”
Schroeder added that the EEOC’s recent ruling could also give employers a foundation to rebut assertions that a position they take as part of the accommodation process runs contrary to the standard laid out in Groff.
“I think that line of reasoning is going to be what employers attach to their position,” Schroeder added.
(Subscription required)
