In a much-anticipated ruling on an issue that has frustrated religious rights activists for more than 50 years, the Supreme Court ruled last week that employers must make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of their employees unless doing so would create a “substantial” burden for the employer. The ruling was supported by all nine justices.
The ruling was celebrated by a wide array of Jewish, Christian and Muslim groups who joined in advocacy in support of Gerald Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service worker, who wanted to take off Sundays due to his religious beliefs. When the Postal Service refused to accommodate his request, Groff quit and sued the agency.
At issue in the Groff case was a provision in a 1972 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate employee religious observances if they can do so “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” But what does “undue hardship” mean?
In a 1977 decision called TWA v. Hardison, the Supreme Court held that an “undue hardship” exists if accommodation would require an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost.” The Latin phrase “de minimis” means something really small or trivial. That standard essentially gave employers the ability to refuse religious accommodation to employees for even the most inconsequential inconvenience or expense and effectively negated most religious accommodation protection. And it was based upon that “de minimis cost” standard that the lower courts ruled against Groff in his challenge.
In last week’s Groff v. DeJoy decision, however, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed that the term “undue hardship” means something more. In the words of Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion: “In common parlance, a ‘hardship’ is, at a minimum, ‘something hard to bear.’” Under the ruling, courts hearing cases about religious accommodation will now be required to determine “whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.”
The Groff ruling makes clear that the “undue hardship” standard in Title VII means what it says. As a result, employers need to consider carefully and weigh the relative costs and burdens of requested accommodation for an employee’s religious need in deciding whether to grant the request. The ruling changed the standard but didn’t resolve Groff’s claim. Instead, Groff’s case was sent back to the lower courts for reevaluation in light of the newly articulated standard.
The Groff ruling is a welcome and long overdue correction of Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard. But it doesn’t end the inquiry. Nor will it end the need to continue encouraging employers to make significant efforts to accommodate genuinely held religious beliefs of their employees. The new standard is still vague. And it promises to invite a new wave of litigation from employees and religious rights activists who will test exactly what the new standard means.
