On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that raises the bar for what employers can consider as “undue hardship” when reviewing employee requests for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Cities may need to review their policies on religious accommodations to ensure that they comply with the new standard, including additional training for management and updating written employee materials.
A unanimous court decided in Groff v. DeJoy to clarify 50 years of precedent on interpreting the “undue hardship” standard for determining if an employee’s requested religious accommodation was required to be met under Title VII the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2012, Gerald Groff took a job with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as a postal carrier in a location that generally did not require Sunday deliveries, which was important to Groff as his religious beliefs required that Sundays be reserved for worship and rest. In 2017, his post office location began Sunday deliveries, which Groff refused to work (citing his religious beliefs), requiring his share of the Sunday workload to be added to other carriers. Groff was progressively disciplined for refusing Sunday work, and eventually resigned. He sued the USPS for failing to accommodate his religious objections to working on Sundays.
Title VII generally makes it unlawful to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual with respect to [their] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s… religion.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has interpreted Title VII to require employers to accommodate the reasonable religious needs of employees whenever it would not result in an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Over the years, lower courts have interpreted this to mean that an “undue hardship” includes requiring an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost” to provide a religious accommodation.
The Court determined that the low bar of the “de minimis” standard adopted by lower courts was not in line with what the high court meant in a 1977 case, nor that the “de minimis” standard was in line with the usual understanding of what “undue hardship” means. The Court will now require that to show an undue hardship, “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
This is meant to be a fact-specific inquiry where lower courts consider all the relevant factors of the case-at-hand, including the particular accommodations at issue, their practical impact on the employer, and the employer’s size and operating costs. The Court further outlines the new “undue hardship” inquiry, saying that coworkers’ animosity towards religious expression or religious accommodation is not considered “undue hardship” and that employers must consider alternative accommodation options, not just particular ones. The Court did not make a final decision in the Groff case, instead sending it back to the lower courts to make a more fact-specific inquiry based on the new “substantial cost” standard.
The Court decision anticipates that much of the EEOC’s current guidance will likely be unchanged by the Groff decision, though it does note that some EEOC guidance will need to revised in light of the new rule in this case. Cities should review their own policies on religious accommodations to make sure they are in compliance with the Court’s rule. The law around religious accommodations has been evolving rapidly in recent years, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccine requirements. Cities will likely need to include training on the new standards for managers and supervisors, as well as update written materials like employee handbooks and policies. Cities may need to wait for further clarification from the EEOC for guidance on what is included in determining “substantial increased costs.”
Please note that this information is offered for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Cities should consult their legal counsel with any questions or concerns.