On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Groff v. Dejoy, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), that marks a notable shift in how courts will analyze religious discrimination claims, requiring employers to show that religious accommodations would constitute a “substantial burden in the overall context of [their] business” in order to deny them. The case involved an employee who filed suit against the United States Postal Service (USPS), claiming that that the USPS failed to accommodate his religious beliefs by requiring him to work on Sundays. USPS countered that excusing the employee from work on Sundays constituted an undue hardship on its business.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion.” Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employers as long as the accommodations do not create an ”undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Historically, lower courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have relied on language in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), which indicated that employers need only show that a requested accommodation would cause the employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost” in order to deny the accommodation and prevail.
In Groff, the court clarified that this language was not meant to constitute the court’s authoritative analysis on the subject and stated definitively that the “more than a de minimis cost” standard was not the applicable test. Instead, the court found that “’undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business” and that employer would need to show that the accommodation would cause “substantial increased costs,” taking into account all relevant factors. The court also clarified that employers need to show that requested accommodations would negatively impact the conduct of their business, not simply affect the individual’s coworkers.
The court’s ruling may open the door to more successful claims of religious discrimination against employers, including school districts. While the court indicated in its decisions that many previous EEOC determinations on the “undue hardship” analysis would survive this ruling, Groff may significantly change the practice in this area moving forward.
School districts facing religious accommodation claims will need to be prepared to demonstrate that requested accommodations would constitute a “substantial” burden on its business of educating students. Districts are encouraged to work with their board counsel to ensure that these determinations are made consistent with the clarified standard. Members are welcome to contact OSBA’s legal division with general questions about Title VII and the new decision at 855-OSBA-LAW.