If you work with employers long enough, you’re going to run into some sticky situations with regard to religious accommodations.  They can be uncomfortable conversations to have, and there has been very little guidance as to what steps an employer must take in order to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.  Well worry no further, as a unanimous United States Supreme Court has come together to provide all the guidance you need in working through your next religious accommodation request.

In the case of Groff v. DeJoy, due to the Postal Service’s agreement to deliver packages for a third party, the plaintiff was placed on a rotating schedule of employees who were required to work on Sundays.  However, due to his refusal to work Sundays due to his religion, the rest of the employees at his branch, including the Postmaster, were required to perform delivery duties.  In addition, co-workers began to complain about the plaintiff’s refusal to work forcing them to pick up extra work on Sundays.  Due to his refusal to work Sundays, he received progressive discipline.  Prior to being terminated, Groff resigned from employment.  He sued soon thereafter, claiming religious discrimination.

As the Court last discussed the failure to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace 50 years ago, it took an opportunity to review the history of religious accommodation precedent.  The EEOC has interpreted Title VII to mean that employers are sometimes required to accommodate the reasonable religious needs of employees.  Employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees whenever that would not work an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

However, the question of what constitutes an undue hardship had yet to be thoroughly answered.  In one previous decision, the Court stated that anything more than a de minimis cost was an undue hardship.  Employers and courts have followed that dictum for 50 years since.

In coming to its decision in the Groff case, the court held that showing more than a de minimis cost associated with accommodating a religious belief “does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.”  Instead, the Court held that undue hardship is “when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”  Employers must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the particular business.

The Court clarified that co-workers’ animosity towards a particular religion, and forcing co-workers to work overtime due to the accommodation do not constitute an undue hardship.  The case was then sent back to the lower courts for resolution under the Supreme Court’s guidance.

With that, the Court opened the door for employees seeking religious accommodation.  Those who were denied in the past now may look to have their requests reconsidered in light of this decision.  Employers must be mindful of the change, as religious accommodation requests must be given extra attention, and not be dismissed due to minor cost implications.

If you, or your organization, need assistance in responding to religious accommodation requests, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.