SCOTUS Takes Case That Could Upend Religious Accommodations In The Workplace

GR
Gould & Ratner

Contributor

Gould & Ratner is a law firm with a wealth of legal experience and business acumen. The firm’s services are designed to reflect the needs of well-established organizations and growing businesses, as well as those of individuals. Our attorneys are trained and educated in multi-faceted legal areas so that each one can guide a client through more than one issue, rather than bouncing them from attorney to attorney. They translate their legal knowledge and business skills into practical solutions that work for our clients. However, when a team is needed, the right people are just down the hallway. More than just legal advisors, our lawyers consistently demonstrate the care and commitment that set us apart.
Late last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could potentially change the legal landscape for employers handling accommodation requests for an employee's...
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Late last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could potentially change the legal landscape for employers handling accommodation requests for an employee's religious beliefs and practices under Title VII. In short, it is reasonable to anticipate that this case could make it more difficult for employers to deny religious accommodations.

As background, Gerald Groff was a U.S. Postal Service employee who had requested an accommodation to be excused from working on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. After that accommodation was denied, he sued the U.S. Postal Service. He lost at the trial court, and on appeal the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the employer because it found that other workers would be burdened if Groff was exempted from working on Sundays.

The challenge at the heart of this case is whether the current, minimal standard for determining if a proposed accommodation results in an "undue hardship" to employers under Title VII should be overturned. The current standard provides that an accommodation is an undue hardship if it presents "more than a de minimis cost" to the employer. In addition to arguing to raise that standard, Groff is arguing that an employer may not demonstrate undue hardship by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's coworkers rather than the business itself.

There are several reasons employers should anticipate the Court will raise the undue burden standard for religious accommodations. First, since the Court reached a 6-3 conservative supermajority, the Court has not been shy about taking cases that expand individual religious rights. Second, the Court's decision to hear this case signals there are at least 4 members of the Court who are sympathetic to the employee's claim.

The Court will hear oral arguments in April 2023 and a decision in this case is not anticipated until sometime in June 2023.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More