By: Eva Zelson
On: February 7, 2025
Since the ratification of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals. An individual’s religious observance and practice is protected by Title VII. However, according to the law, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j), “an employee’s or [a] prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” The issue of contention at the center of the law is what constitutes undue hardship for the employer. Religious accommodation undue hardship has been based on the de minimis cost standard since the ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison in 1977. In the context of religious accommodation undue hardship, de minimis cost is defined as the cost to the employer from an employee’s request for religious accommodation.
The landmark case of 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison diminished the standards on undue hardship for religious accommodations. The court’s ruling enabled employers a broad volition to deny accommodations. For forty-six years de minimis costs was the legal standard in litigation of religious accommodation undue hardship cases. In 2023, a new standard was set.
How Groff v. DeJoy Redefined Undue Hardship
In 2023, a new interpretation of undue hardship in religious accommodations was levied by the supreme court. In the landmark case of Groff v. DeJoy, employers are now tasked with thoroughly examining the operational impact of meeting the requests for religious accommodations; hence, making employers place more emphasis on making meaningful efforts to fulfill the request for religious accommodations. The Supreme Court ruled, “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” This redefined religious accommodation undue hardship ruling will create a more thorough evaluation of the employee’s request and the employer’s hardship that may ensue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission emphasizes employer’s business size and operational costs as key components of the context-specific assessments. The Groff ruling adds complexity for employers to prove undue hardship and greater difficulty for large employers to deny such requests.
Groff v. DeJoy Case Explained: Background & Key Details
The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on June 29, 2023, that redefined undue hardship through religious accommodation. Gerald Groff, an employee of the USPS, was a Rural Carrier Associate who requested not to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. The accommodation was first granted as USPS employees were not required to work on Sundays. However, as of 2013 the USPS and online retailer, Amazon, met in agreement to deliver packages that include Sundays. Groff’s request and was granted a transfer to a smaller facility that did not provide Sunday delivery services. In 2017, that facility also began Sunday deliveries. Mr. Groff’s requests were no longer exempt. His refusal to work Sundays led to progressive discipline, leading to his eventual resignation.
Groff filed a Title VII suit against Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General. The plaintiff claimed that he may have been exempted from Sunday employment duties as his religious accommodation would not have caused undue hardship to the USPS. The trial court ruled in favor of the USPS, as did the Third Circuit of Appeals based on the Trans World Airlines v. Hardison case which held “To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.” The United States Supreme Court unanimously issued an opinion in the case. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court that “We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII.” Hence, the Supreme Court did not overrule Hardison, but found that Hardison only needed to be clarified.
How Religious Discrimination Affects Employment Law
The ruling in the Groff v. DeJoy case has significantly altered the landscape of religious accommodations and redefined undue hardships. With a closer alignment to Title VII, employees can now find greater protection from religious discrimination and make certain that individuals’ beliefs will receive meaningful consideration. To better understand your rights, learn more about how to prove religious discrimination in the workplace, or consult a religious discrimination attorney.
What to Do If You’re Facing Religious Discrimination?
Religious discrimination is demoralizing and can have a significant negative impact on its victims. The team at Zeff Law Firm are experts in religious discrimination law. If you believe you have been a victim of religious discrimination and have not been afforded your rightful accommodations, contact a religious discrimination attorney today for your free consultation and put our 30 years of employment law and civil rights experience to work for you.