[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.18.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” text_orientation=”justified” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Recently, in a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy<\/em>, the Supreme Court recalibrated the Title VII \u201creasonable accommodation\u201d test for matters involving religious discrimination. Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation of an employee\u2019s religious beliefs, observances, and practices, when requested, unless accommodation would impose an \u201cundue hardship\u201d on business operations.\u00a0 For over forty-five years, courts have relied on a \u201cmore than a de minimis <\/em>cost\u201d standard in interpreting \u201cundue hardship.\u201d Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/em>, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977).<\/p>\n Writing for the majority in Groff<\/em>, Justice Alito noted that the while many lower courts viewed the phrase \u201cde minimis <\/em>cost\u201d as \u201cthe authoritative interpretation of the statutory term \u2018undue hardship,\u2019 it is doubtful that it was meant to take on that large role.\u201d Accordingly, the Court held that \u201cshowing \u2018more than a de minimis<\/em> cost\u2019\u2026does not establish \u2018undue hardship.\u2019\u201d Instead, the Court adopted an understanding that \u201c\u2019undue hardship\u2019 is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer\u2019s business.\u201d<\/p>\n Under the new standard, an employer must show that \u201cthe burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.\u201d<\/p>\n The Court also held that \u201c[a]n employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is \u2018undue,\u2019 and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered \u2018undue.\u2019\u201d Two key take aways here are (1) \u201cTitle VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation\u2019s effect on the \u2018conduct of the employer\u2019s business\u2019\u201d and (2) \u201cTitle VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee\u2019s practice of religion, not merely that it assesses the reasonableness of a particular accommodation or accommodations.\u201d<\/p>\n The Court provided some guidance for employers on what might rise to the level of \u201cundue hardship.\u201d Justice Alito pointed out that in Hardison<\/em>, the Court referenced terms \u201csubstantial additional costs\u201d and \u201csubstantial expenditures.\u201d Lower courts will likely use these phrases as guideposts as newly filed religious discrimination cases wind through the court system.<\/p>\n In the wake of Groff<\/em>, employers need to be prepared to change the way they evaluate religious accommodation requests. For example, whereas courts may have previously held that administrative costs associated with reworking schedules or the infrequent payment of premium wages for substitute wages presented an \u201cundue hardship,\u201d it is likely that either would present an \u201cundue hardship\u201d under the new standard.<\/p>\n As always, we are here to help you with all of your employment needs. If you have any questions about how the Groff<\/em> may affect your business or if you need guidance in evaluating religious accommodation requests for your employees, please do not hesitate to contact us.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Recently, in a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court recalibrated the Title VII \u201creasonable accommodation\u201d test for matters involving religious discrimination. Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation of an employee\u2019s religious beliefs, observances, and practices, when requested, unless accommodation would impose an \u201cundue hardship\u201d on business operations.\u00a0 For over forty-five […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1125,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1120"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1120"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1133,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1120\/revisions\/1133"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1125"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfww.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}