In the last year, we have seen a sharp increase in religious accommodation requests. Given this, employers need to be aware of a significant shift in how courts analyze these requests.

Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s (or applicant’s) religious practice or observance unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Previously, courts held that a religious accommodation imposed an undue hardship if it required the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost.[1] However, the United State Supreme Court significantly changed this analysis in its recent opinion, Groff v. DeJoy.

In Groff, the Court stated that lower courts had misinterpreted its holding in a previous case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, and the “de minimis” standard was a mistake.[2] Instead, the Groff Court held that employers “must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” in order to deny a religious accommodation.[3] This means employers must show the burden posed by the accommodation is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.[4] The Court explained this is a fact-specific inquiry “that takes into account all relevant factors . . . including, the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of [an] employer.”[5]

Unfortunately, the Court provided little guidance as to what constitutes “substantial increased costs.” And the Court declined to adopt the “significant expense or difficulty” analysis applied to ADA accommodation requests.[6] Until courts clarify this new standard, employers should proceed with caution when analyzing religious accommodation requests. Employers need to carefully evaluate the request and engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee about the request and, if necessary, possible alternative accommodations. Employers who deny requests should be ready to prove why the denied accommodation creates substantial increased costs given the size and profitability of the employer; this may include evidence as to how the operations are affected in the employee’s absence, any lost revenue, and impact on customers and/or other employees. Ideally, employers should offer an alternative accommodation if a reasonable one is available.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Please consult with your legal counsel regarding any specific situation.

Written by Christie Newkirk and Tayler Gray from Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.

[1] Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 85 (1977).

[2] Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2295 (2023).

[3] Groff, 143 S. Ct. at 2295 (2023) (emphasis added).

[4] Id. at 2294.

[5] Id. at 2295.

[6] Id. at 2295-96.