Filter By Service Area
Filter By Title
Filter By Office

Resources

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.

U.S. Supreme Court Substantially Increases Employee Protections in Religious Accommodation Cases

Just as June came to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court released several opinions, including Groff v. Dejoy, a religious accommodation case important for employers involving a postal worker who claimed he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. In this unanimous decision, the Court overturned the longstanding “de minimis” standard previously applied by courts to an employer’s decision to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation—meaning that the employer needed only to show that the accommodation would be more than a minor cost to the employer. The Court changed the standard to a more “pro-employee” test, and now an employer must provide a religious accommodation unless the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business.”

This decision marks a significant departure from the previous standard set by the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which interpreted “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as anything imposing more than a minor, or “de minimis” cost. That 1977 decision had made it easier for employers to deny religious accommodations to employees. Now, the unanimous court has held that accommodations should be allowed unless the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As a practical matter, this decision brings the employer’s “undue hardship” burden required to properly deny a religious accommodation closer to the “significant difficulty or expense” test required to deny a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and affect employers of all sizes and industries. Employers’ policies and practices need to be reviewed to ensure that they are respectful of employees' religious beliefs and practices and provide a chance to engage in a good-faith dialogue with employees who request accommodations. Employers should also document their efforts to provide reasonable accommodations and the reasons for denying any requests that would cause undue hardship.

This decision may also impact one of the more recent scenarios for religious accommodation requests—COVID-19 vaccinations. It is likely that some employers denied religious accommodation requests by employees who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons, and the basis for the employers’ denials was likely that any accommodation would cause an “undue hardship.” If the employer’s decision was considered based on the “de minimis” standard now rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the previous religious accommodation denials need to be reconsidered to determine the continued validity of those denials under the new analysis provided by the Groff Court.

Employers who fail to comply with the new standard may face lawsuits from employees who claim that their religious rights were violated. Such lawsuits may result in damages and reputational harm, so care needs to be taken.