Groff v. DeJoy

BJC’S POSITION

No. While not all employee requests for  religious accommodations must be granted, the current standard is too low. The Supreme Court should revise the current “de minimis cost” standard from 1977’s Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” allows it to refuse a religious accommodation. A better definition for “undue hardship” would take into account whether providing the accommodation would involve “significant difficulty or expense.”

STATUS

The U.S. Supreme Court released a unanimous decision on June 29, 2023, clarifying the standard for religious accommodation cases. The Court stated that “Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

“Providing workplaces free from religious discrimination requires all businesses to consider how some religious observances conflict with general work rules and business operations,” said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman in a statement welcoming the decision. “While there will certainly be future disputes, today’s unanimous decision points us in a positive direction where all Americans across ideological and religious differences can come together to defend faith freedom for all.  

From the brief BJC joined:

“Whether persons of faith seek to live their religion through holy days, religious apparel, or sacred symbols, Hardison makes it too easy for employers to deny an accommodation.”

“Hardison falls heaviest on religious minorities and the economically vulnerable.”

“To be sure, extreme circumstances could make a burden on coworkers … That can occur … because the accommodation materially disrupts the operation of the business, such as by exposing it to the risk of legal liability.”

“Amici [LDS, BJC, USCCB, ERLC, ADL] are religious organizations with a shared commitment to defending religious freedom. Some of us have joined amicus briefs in previous litigation before the Court, at times on different sides of issues. See, e.g., Fulton v. Philadelphia, Carson v. Makin, Kennedy v. Bremerton. But we are united in submitting this brief in support of petitioner’s crucial effort to restore robust legal protection for the religious freedom of all employees.”