Are Employers Required to Accommodate Religious Practices of Employees?

In a pivotal moment for religious liberty, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 29, 2023, that the U.S. Postal Service violated the Constitutional rights of an evangelical Christian mail carrier by refusing to accommodate his wish not to work on Sundays. This landmark ruling of Groff v. DeJoy clarifies the standard for religious accommodations employers must make to their employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and requires employers to accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Prior to Groff, courts followed the standard in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977), which interpreted “undue hardship” to mean any effort that is more than a “de minimis cost,” a legal expression meaning a trivial cost. But almost any cost can be more than trivial. 

The case presented to the Supreme Court this summer involved a United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, Gerald Groff who, due to his Christianity, believes Sundays should be devoted to worship, not secular work. When he joined USPS, a parcel carrier service with over 600,000 employees, Groff’s position as a Rural Carrier Associate did not generally require Sunday work. By 2013, USPS had contracted to facilitate some Sunday deliveries for Amazon, Inc. and attempted to compel Groff and other deliverers to work certain Sundays. Groff refused to work Sundays and received continual disciplinary action for this choice. In January 2019, he resigned. In Groff’s Title VII suit against USPS, the Third Circuit Court found the de minimis standard met here because exempting Groff from Sunday work had imposed more of a burden on his coworkers, disrupted workflow, and diminished employee morale. 

Hearing Groff’s case on appeal, the Supreme Court clarifies what is required by Title VII, holding that showing more than a de minimis cost does not suffice to establish undue hardship. The ordinary meaning of the term “hardship” refers to some sort of burden, Justice Alito explains, and adding the modifier “undue” means that such hardship must not rise to an excessive level. Understanding the language of Title VII this way, the Court held that an employer must show the burden of granting a religious accommodation is “substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business,” not merely “de minimis.” 

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court to apply the clarified standard for religious accommodations, which will likely result in favor of Groff’s right to respect his religious views regarding the Sabbath. For Groff and millions of other employees, the new standard more closely aligns with America’s long history of protecting its employees from discrimination based on religious beliefs and is a victory for all people of faith.