Court Case
Groff v. DeJoy
At Issue: Has the Supreme Court accurately interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s religious accommodations provisions?
BJC Says: No. The Supreme Court should overturn the “de minimis cost” standard in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which states only an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” can allow employers to deny a religious accommodation. BJC also believes that the undue hardship test is not met merely by showing a burden on other employees.
Case 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.”
Groff v. DeJoy involves a part-time mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, Gerald Groff, who was denied a religious accommodation not to work on his Sabbath, which is Sunday. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USPS could refuse his request because allowing him to not work Sundays impacted other employees.
BJC said the Supreme Court should have revised the current “de minimis cost” standard from 1977’s Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. While not all employee requests for religious accommodations must be granted, the current standard is too low.
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.”
BJC joined a brief with religious organizations calling on the Court to overturn Hardison.
The U.S. Supreme Court released a unanimous decision on June 29, 2023, clarifying the standard for religious accommodation cases.
“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.
Resources
Want to know more? Take a look at these additional resources from BJC analyzing and reacting to the ruling.
-
The Brief
Read BJCs friend of the court brief .
-
BJCs Reaction
Read the announcement where BJC welcomed the unanimous ruling.
-
Holly Hollman's Analysis
BJCs Chief Legal Counsel Holly Hollman wrote an article for Baptist News Global analyzing the ruling.
-
A Podcast Reflection
BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler and Chief Legal Counsel Holly Hollman reflected on the case ruling in a podcast episode.