On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued its highly anticipated decision in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, 600 U.S. __ (2023), in which it clarified the burden employers must prove when denying a worker’s request for reasonable accommodation for religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

De Minimis vs. Substantial Burden
For almost 50 years, courts, and even the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), have interpreted and accepted the “undue hardship” standard for religious accommodation required by Title VII to mean “any effort or cost that is more than de minimis.” Courts have generally understood de minimis to mean “so very small or trifling that they are not even worth noticing.”

Relying on the de minimis standard, the District Court granted summary judgment to the employer, the United States Postal Service, which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. However, with this decision, the Court clarified that “undue hardship” can be shown by an employer “when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” that is, “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

Relevant Factors
Since reasonable accommodation is a fact-specific analysis, the Court leaves the application of this clarification to the lower courts based on the facts presented. Courts must now apply the test for “undue hardship” by considering all relevant factors, including “the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of [the] employer.”

How did we get here?
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against workers because of the worker’s religion. The EEOC then promulgated its interpretation that Title VII requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s religious beliefs for practices unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” for the employer in its regulations. Subsequently, in response to a pair of cases questioning employers’ obligations to accommodate employees’ observance of the Sabbath, Congress amended Title VII to require employers to reasonably accommodate workers’ religious observance or practice unless the employer is unable to do so “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

But what is an “undue hardship”? As with many vague or ambiguous statutory language, courts bear the responsibility of interpreting and applying the law. In the case of Title VII’s requirement for employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, many courts have relied on the Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

While the Hardison case makes multiple references to “substantial” costs or expenses, courts have focused on the single sentence, “To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.” Thus, courts have relied on this sentence to mean that an “undue hardship” is anything that is more than de minimis.

The Court in Groff expressed its doubt that the sentence from Hardison was intended to carry the weight it was given. The Court vacated the Third Circuit’s affirmation and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the clarification that Hardison requires employers to show that the “accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

What does this mean for employers?
Employers should keep in mind that the intent of Title VII is to protect workers and require employers to accommodate religious beliefs or practices. The Court left intact for now the EEOC’s guidance on religious discrimination, which focuses on what should be accommodated. In evaluating what they are able to accommodate, employers should note that the Groff decision increases the standard with which courts will evaluate the burden of the accommodation to the employer. Employers should consider all relevant factors and alternative options before denying a request for a religious accommodation.