The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month in favor of an evangelical Christian postal worker who refused to work on Sundays due to Sabbath observance. In Groff v. DeJoy, while declining to overturn its longstanding precedent for establishing undue hardship in the context of religious accommodations, the Supreme Court clarified its prior interpretation from 1977 in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, holding that, to deny a religious accommodation on the basis of undue hardship, an employer must show that the burden of granting the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

Background

Gerald Groff, the plaintiff, began working as a rural carrier associate for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 2012. Groff’s position initially did not require him to work on Sundays. However, in 2013, after USPS began facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon, Groff was told he would have to begin working on Sundays. This conflicted with Groff’s religious belief that Sundays should be devoted to rest. Rather than comply, he sought and received a transfer to another location that did not make Sunday deliveries. However, in 2017, his new location began making Sunday deliveries.

Because Groff was unwilling to work on Sundays, USPS assigned other employees to make Sunday deliveries which would have otherwise been allocated to Groff, including employees who were not typically responsible for making deliveries and employees from other locations. This resulted in complaints from other USPS employees regarding the reallocation of Groff’s shifts and the consequences of his Sunday absences.

Groff faced progressive discipline by USPS for refusing to work on Sundays, which eventually resulted in his resignation in January 2019. Groff subsequently sued under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that USPS failed to accommodate his observation of the Sabbath on Sundays despite the fact that it was possible to have done so.

A federal district court judge granted summary judgment to USPS that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardison, which had long been interpreted as prescribing a “more than a de minimis cost” test to demonstrate undue hardship. Without discussing what exactly would constitute an undue hardship, the Hardison Court stated that “to bear [more than] a de minimis cost . . . is an undue hardship.” Relying on this interpretation, the 3rd Circuit found that USPS had suffered more than a de minimis cost in exempting Groff from Sunday work because the accommodation imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and diminished employee morale. But the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and overturned the appellate court decision.

The SCOTUS Decision

Writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Samuel A. Alito explained that, although many lower courts have viewed the “de minimis” language in Hardison as the authoritative interpretation of “undue hardship,” the “de minimis” reference was undercut by conflicting language in the opinion and was likely not meant to take on the large role that it has. While stopping short of overruling Hardison, the majority held that showing “more than a de minimis cost” does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII.

Specifically, Alito reasoned that undue hardship requires a showing of substantial, increased costs in the context of the employer’s business – a fact-specific inquiry requiring courts to take into account 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. The majority went on to clarify several recurring issues that have resulted from “the erroneous de minimis interpretation of Hardison.”

The first issue was whether the effect of an accommodation on an employee’s co-workers should be considered in determining the reasonableness of the accommodation. On this point, the majority said that not all effects on co-workers are relevant. Instead, only those effects that affect the conduct of the employer’s business should be considered. Alito noted that while the impact of an accommodation on co-workers can be a factor if that impact results in cost to the employer, certain impacts on co-workers previously used as evidence to show undue hardship are now off the table, such as effects attributable to employee animosity towards a particular religion, to religion in general or to the notion of accommodating religious practice.

Second, the majority clarified that Title VII requires an employer to not only assess the reasonableness of a particular accommodation but also to accommodate an employee’s religious practice. Explaining this distinction, Alito noted that “it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship.” Instead, the employer must consider other options, such as voluntary shift swapping.

The Supreme Court remanded Groff’s case to the 3rd Circuit for reevaluation under the new, context-specific standard.

Employer Takeaways

While the Court’s clarification of the undue hardship standard in Groff is a major departure from Hardison, it likely will not impact the EEOC’s existing guidance for employers on religious accommodations suggesting a showing of undue hardship requires a “more than a de minimis cost.” Nevertheless, in light of the Court’s refashioned position in Groff, employers should be on notice that they must now meet a much higher burden in order establish undue hardship sufficient to deny an employee’s religious accommodation request.

Employers also should be prepared to see a massive increase in religious accommodation requests by employees in the wake of Groff. They should review their existing policies and procedures with regard to religious accommodation requests and seek the advice of counsel regarding any modifications that should be made in light of Groff.

The Labor and Employment Group at Miles & Stockbridge are monitoring the case for further developments and are here to help clients navigate the effects of Groff.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

[View source.]