Filter By Service Area
Filter By Title
Filter By Office

Resources

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.

Supreme Court to Rule on Workplace Religious Accommodation Requests

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on its most recent employment accommodation case, Groff v. DeJoy, in which a U.S. Postal Service employee who requested not to work on Sunday was denied the accommodation because of the burden his absence placed on his workplace in rural Pennsylvania, which greatly struggled to find a replacement worker. Groff quit his job and sued his employer for violations of Federal religious discrimination law.

The Supreme Court is faced with a question that has been longstanding law for almost fifty years: when can an employer refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request? How this Court will address that question could have substantial implications for how employers handle religious accommodations—especially during a historic uptick in accommodation requests due to COVID-19 vaccination policies. The Supreme Court’s decision could encourage employees to re-submit religious accommodation requests for COVID-19 vaccines and other accommodations.

How has the Court Interpreted Undue Burden Previously?

Federal law provides that an employer can refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request when that request would be a “undue burden” on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court said that an accommodation was an “undue burden” if it caused more than a “de minimis” cost on the employer. This standard has not changed since that decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the Groff’s case, recognized that the employer relations issues, overtime costs, increased workload on other employees, and reduced employee morale satisfied were more than “de minimis” costs, such that the employer’s decision to deny the accommodation was proper. The Justices, including historically conservative Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, asked questions that suggested doubts that the standard should change.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that Groff’s accommodation to be off on Sundays caused one employee to quit, one to transfer to another location, and one to file a grievance against the employer because of Groff’s treatment. Justice Kavanaugh made clear that his position is that such costs were sufficient to constitute an undue burden.

Justice Barrett, in response to the statement by Groff’s counsel that employee morale would only be an undue burden if an employee quits, suggested that she disagreed with the idea that an employer would have to wait until employees start quitting to deny a reasonable accommodation.

What Employers Should Do

While the Supreme Court deliberates its ruling on this religious accommodation case, employers should review their religious accommodation policy to ensure that it is legally compliant, as well as analyze their current religious accommodations provided or denied in the past to determine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact those accommodations.