The U.S. Supreme Court May Re-evaluate its Definition of “Undue Hardship” in Relation to Religious Accommodation Requests

Ashley Graves, Law Clerk

             The United States Supreme Court will consider the continued validity of the current, prevailing application of the “undue hardship” standard with respect to religious accommodation requests under Title VII when it hears oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, on April 18, 2023.

 Background

             Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs that conflict with workplace rules, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer.  There is no statutory definition of “undue hardship” under Title VII, so courts and employers have relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in TWA v. Hardison[1] for guidance.  In Hardison, the Supreme Court defined “undue hardship” as requiring an employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” which is in contrast to the concept of undue hardship under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which places a much heavier burden on employers to show undue hardship for accommodation purposes.

             In Groff v. DeJoy, petitioner Gerald Groff challenged his employer’s (USPS) denial of his requested religious accommodation to not work on Sundays.[2]  USPS attempted to find other mail carriers to cover Mr. Groff’s Sunday shifts but was ultimately unsuccessful due to a shortage of rural mail carriers.  Mr. Groff continued to request that he be exempted from work on Sundays, resulting in USPS declining the accommodation request and arguing that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship.  Mr. Groff was progressively disciplined for missing his scheduled Sunday shifts, leading to his eventual resignation—the cited reason being USPS’s apparent refusal to honor his religious beliefs.

             Mr. Groff brought a Title VII complaint against USPS alleging disparate treatment and failure to accommodate.  The District Court dismissed petitioner’s claims and the Third Circuit affirmed on appeal.  Relying on Hardison, the Third Circuit concluded that exempting Mr. Groff from Sunday work posed “more than a de minimis cost” on USPS since his coworkers would be further burdened, workplace and workflow would be disrupted, there would be diminished morale, and thus resulting damage to USPS’s operations.

            Mr. Groff then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case, and the Court granted certiorari on January 13, 2023.  Per his brief to the Court, Mr. Groff contends that the current definition of undue hardship “effectively nullifies the statute’s promise of a workplace free from religious discrimination.”[3]  Mr. Groff will urge the Court to adopt the definition of undue hardship found in the ADA, which unlike Title VII, specifically defines the phrase as an employer action “requiring significant difficulty or expense.”[4]

Key Takeaways

            Religious accommodation requests have spiked in recent years, due in large part to public and private COVID-19 vaccination mandates and rules.  If the Supreme Court sides with Mr. Groff, employers will have much less leeway to deny religious accommodation requests on the basis of undue hardship, and will need to treat such requests similarly to requests for disability-related accommodations under the ADA.  Campbell Litigation will continue to follow the Supreme Court’s consideration of Groff, and is available to assist with questions or concerns regarding religious accommodations in the workplace.   

[1] TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977)

[2] Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162 (3d. Cir. 2022)

[3] Brief for Petitioner, Groff v. DeJoy, 2021 WL 3285579, No. 21-1900, at *1 (July 28, 2021)

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).