Background of Religious Accommodation Law

Religious freedom in the workplace is primarily protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their religion and requires them to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. The law covers employers with 15 or more employees, as well as labor unions, employment agencies, and federal, state, and local governments.

For decades, the standard for “undue hardship” was set by the 1977 Supreme Court case Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. In Hardison, the Court ruled that an employer could deny an accommodation if it required anything more than a de minimis (minimal) cost or effort. This low bar made it relatively easy for employers to refuse religious accommodations, often citing minor inconveniences, slight increases in labor costs, or mere disruption to coworker schedules. The Court reasoned that requiring more would give religious employees “preferential treatment” over others.

However, many legal experts and religious freedom advocates argued that the Hardison standard was too weak and failed to provide meaningful protection. As a result, employees frequently faced denials for requests like schedule changes for Sabbath observance, dress code exceptions for religious attire or grooming, time off for prayer breaks during the workday, or exemptions from mandatory diversity training that conflicted with their faith. Lower courts applied the de minimis standard inconsistently, with some employers successfully denying accommodations based on trivial administrative burdens.

The landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy in June 2023. This ruling overruled the de minimis standard and replaced it with a more robust test that requires employers to show a substantial burden before denying an accommodation. The decision was unanimous, signaling strong judicial consensus that religious liberty in the workplace deserved greater protection.

The Groff v. DeJoy Case

Facts of the Case

Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in rural Pennsylvania. As an Evangelical Christian, he observed Sunday as a day of rest and worship. For years, his position did not require Sunday work because USPS had a separate contract with Amazon that initially handled Sunday deliveries through other carriers. However, as Amazon’s Sunday volume grew, USPS began requiring all rural carriers to work on Sundays. Groff requested a religious accommodation to be excused from Sunday shifts, citing his Sabbath observance.

Initially, USPS accommodated his request by scheduling him to work Sundays at a different station that was already staffed, but that arrangement eventually became logistically difficult as Amazon deliveries increased further. USPS then required Groff to work Sundays. When he refused, he faced disciplinary actions, including warning letters and ultimately his resignation under pressure. Groff sued USPS under Title VII, arguing that the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his religious practice and that the “undue hardship” defense should require more than a minimal cost.

The lower courts sided with USPS, citing Hardison and concluding that the burden on coworkers—who had to cover Groff’s shifts or work overtime—and the operational disruption was more than de minimis. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the long-standing precedent. Groff then petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case specifically to revisit the de minimis standard.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Groff, holding that the Hardison standard was too lenient and had been misinterpreted for decades. The Court clarified that an “undue hardship” must be substantial in the context of the employer’s business. It is not enough to show a mere inconvenience, a slight cost increase, or some disruption to coworkers. Employers must demonstrate that the accommodation would result in “significant difficulty or expense.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court, stated: “We hold that showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’ does not qualify as undue hardship under Title VII. Instead, an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The decision explicitly rejected the language from Hardison that had allowed employers to deny accommodations based on trivial burdens, such as paying overtime for substitutes or shifting duties among staff. The Court also emphasized that the impact on coworkers should be assessed with caution; simply requiring other employees to assume some additional duties does not automatically create an undue hardship, especially if the duties are within the scope of their jobs.

Justice Alito further noted that the Hardison standard had been widely criticized by lower courts and scholars for its inconsistency with the original intent of Title VII. The ruling effectively overruled the part of Hardison that defined undue hardship as anything more than de minimis, while leaving other aspects of religious accommodation law intact.

What the Ruling Changes

The Groff ruling has several critical implications:

  • Higher threshold for denial: Employers can no longer use minor cost or inconvenience as grounds to refuse a religious accommodation. The burden is now on the employer to prove a significant hardship. Even costs that exceed a de minimis level may not be enough if they are not substantial in the context of the employer’s overall operations.
  • Consideration of coworkers: While the Court acknowledged that impacts on coworkers can be relevant, it emphasized that requiring employees to swap shifts or cover some duties does not automatically constitute undue hardship. The employer must show that the burden on coworkers is so severe that it affects the entire workforce or essential business functions.
  • Case-by-case analysis: The ruling reinforces that each accommodation request must be evaluated individually, considering the specific nature of the business, the workforce, and the accommodation sought. A blanket policy denying certain types of accommodations is no longer acceptable.
  • Procedural rigor: Employers must engage in a good-faith interactive process to explore possible accommodations before concluding that undue hardship exists. Courts will scrutinize whether employers seriously considered alternatives.

The decision also makes clear that the new standard applies retroactively to pending cases and future claims, and it encourages lower courts to revisit prior denials that relied on the old de minimis interpretation.

Implications for Employers

Revised Undue Hardship Test

Under the new standard, employers must carefully assess any denial of a religious accommodation. The substantial hardship test means that common justifications—like “it costs extra money,” “it inconveniences our schedule,” “we already have enough staff,” or “it upsets other employees”—are no longer sufficient unless the impact is truly severe and demonstrable.

Practical examples of what may now qualify as undue hardship include:

  • Significant operational disruptions that harm productivity or safety, such as a religious accommodation that would delay a manufacturing line or prevent a critical safety function from being performed.
  • Excessive financial costs that substantially affect the business’s bottom line, such as hiring a dedicated replacement for a low-profit position or paying substantial overtime repeatedly across a large workforce.
  • Necessity to violate other laws or binding collective bargaining agreements, if the accommodation would conflict with federal safety regulations or a union contract provision that cannot be modified.
  • Impacts on coworkers that go beyond minor inconvenience, such as forcing a small number of employees to work mandatory overtime every week for an extended period, leading to safety or morale crises.

Employers should also note that the ruling applies to all covered entities under Title VII, including private employers, labor unions, employment agencies, and federal, state, and local governments. The same standard applies regardless of the employer’s size, though smaller employers may have a slightly easier time showing substantial hardship due to limited resources.

Practical Steps for Compliance

To align with the new legal landscape, employers should take the following actions:

  1. Update policies: Revise handbooks and accommodation procedures to reflect the higher undue hardship standard. Remove any language that suggests minimal cost is enough to deny a request. Explicitly state that the employer will consider all reasonable accommodations unless they impose a substantial hardship.
  2. Train managers and HR: Ensure that decision-makers understand that religious accommodations must be granted unless a truly substantial burden exists. Provide training on interactive dialogue and good-faith consideration. Role-play scenarios involving Sabbath observance, religious dress, prayer breaks, and proselytizing to build practical skills.
  3. Engage in the interactive process: When an employee requests an accommodation, meet with them to discuss options. Document all steps taken to explore possible solutions, including schedule adjustments, voluntary shift swaps, unpaid leave, lateral transfers, or other creative arrangements. If a full accommodation is not feasible, consider a partial or temporary solution.
  4. Evaluate impact objectively: Before denying an accommodation, quantify the expected costs, safety risks, or operational harm. Vague assertions of burden will not hold up under the new standard. Use concrete metrics like lost revenue, overtime hours, or staffing shortages.
  5. Review collective bargaining agreements: If you operate under a union contract, work with union representatives to identify potential accommodations that do not violate the agreement. The EEOC has guidance on how to accommodate religious practices while respecting seniority systems.
  6. Consider temporary accommodations: If a full accommodation is difficult, offer a temporary solution while evaluating long-term feasibility. This demonstrates good faith and reduces legal risk. Document the temporary arrangement and review it periodically.
  7. Monitor EEOC developments: The EEOC has updated its guidance to reflect Groff. Stay informed about new enforcement trends and court decisions that further define “substantial hardship.”

For further guidance, consult the EEOC’s religious accommodation guidance and the full text of the Groff v. DeJoy decision. Human resources professionals can also refer to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) overview for best-practice recommendations.

Compliance Checklist

Use this checklist to ensure your organization is prepared:

  • ☐ Handbook language updated to remove de minimis references
  • ☐ Religious accommodation request form revised to prompt detailed hardship analysis
  • ☐ Managers trained on interactive process and new substantial hardship standard
  • ☐ HR team can identify common religious accommodation requests (Sabbath, prayer, attire, grooming, dietary, proselytizing)
  • ☐ Process in place to document all accommodation requests, discussions, and denials
  • ☐ Legal counsel consulted for high-risk or complex requests
  • ☐ Union contract reviewed for flexibility to accommodate religious practices

Implications for Employees

Employees now have stronger protections when seeking religious accommodations. The ruling means that employers must take requests seriously and cannot simply say “no” because the accommodation would be a hassle or cost a little money. However, employees still have responsibilities to cooperate in the process.

Here’s what employees should know:

  • You have a right to request: You can ask for reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. This includes time off for holy days, dress code exceptions for religious garb or hairstyles, breaks for prayer, flexible lunch times, exemptions from certain duties that conflict with your faith, or adjustments to mandatory meetings. Your belief does not have to be part of an organized religion; sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs are protected.
  • Employers must engage with you: If you make a request, your employer should discuss possible solutions. You may need to be flexible as well—for example, by suggesting a different schedule or swapping shifts with a colleague—but the employer cannot simply dismiss your request without a thorough analysis.
  • Denials must be justified: If your accommodation is denied, ask for a written explanation detailing the specific substantial hardship that justifies the denial. Vague statements like “we can’t afford it,” “it would be too disruptive,” or “it would cause low morale” are no longer acceptable. The explanation should include concrete numbers or evidence.
  • Retaliation is illegal: If you are punished, demoted, subjected to a hostile environment, or fired for requesting or pursuing a religious accommodation, you may have a claim for retaliation under Title VII. Document all interactions, including dates, names, and what was said. Keep copies of your accommodation request and any denials.
  • Consider filing a charge: If your rights have been violated, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Groff decision has already influenced EEOC enforcement and court rulings in favor of employees. The EEOC will investigate and may file a lawsuit on your behalf or issue a right-to-sue letter.

Employees should be prepared to engage in good faith and offer reasonable alternatives if their initial request is not feasible. Courts will consider whether the employee was cooperative and whether the employer was open to discussion.

Broader Impact and Future Outlook

The Groff decision has sparked significant changes in workplace policies across the United States. Many employers have already updated their accommodation procedures to comply with the stricter standard. The ruling also has potential ripple effects in other areas of employment law, such as accommodation for pregnancy, disability, or other protected characteristics, though the specific language is limited to religion. For example, the reasoning about substantial hardship may influence how courts interpret similar standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state laws.

Legal experts anticipate more litigation as the boundaries of “substantial hardship” are tested in various industries. For example, how will the standard apply in healthcare settings where a single employee’s absence could impact patient care? In retail during peak seasons? In emergency services where staffing is critical? These questions will likely be resolved by lower courts in the coming years. Some courts have already begun applying Groff to cases involving schedule changes for Sabbath observance and dress code exemptions for religious head coverings.

Additionally, the ruling may encourage more employees to request accommodations, knowing that the law now provides stronger backing. Employers should prepare for an increase in requests and ensure their HR teams are equipped to handle them fairly and efficiently. The interactive process will become more important than ever.

Some states have also passed their own religious accommodation laws that go beyond federal protections. For instance, California, New York, and Illinois have laws that require employers to accommodate religious practices unless it imposes an “undue hardship,” often defined similarly to the Groff standard. Employers in those states must comply with both state and federal requirements. Additionally, a growing number of states have passed laws protecting employees’ rights to wear religious attire, including head scarves, turbans, and yarmulkes. Employers should be aware of overlapping protections.

For a more detailed analysis of the decision and its implications for business, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) provides a comprehensive overview that includes model policies and case law updates. Legal counsel should be consulted for specific situations.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy raises the bar for employers to deny religious accommodations from a de minimis cost to a substantial hardship standard.
  • Employers must now engage in a meaningful interactive process and document any significant difficulty or expense before refusing a request.
  • Employees have stronger rights to request accommodations for religious practices, including scheduling, dress codes, and prayer breaks. Retaliation remains illegal.
  • The ruling applies to all employers covered by Title VII, and failure to comply may lead to EEOC charges and litigation with higher potential damages.
  • Businesses should update their policies, train staff, and evaluate each request on its own merits to avoid liability. The Groff decision encourages proactive, good-faith engagement.
  • State laws may provide additional protections; employers operating in multiple states must comply with the highest standard.

Understanding and implementing the new standard is essential for fostering a respectful, inclusive workplace that respects religious freedom while maintaining operational efficiency. The Groff decision is a landmark shift that will shape religious accommodation law for years to come. By taking proactive steps now, employers can reduce legal risk and create a work environment where employees of all faiths feel respected and valued.