On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court docket issued a uncommon unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, and set a better normal for employers to fulfill when denying spiritual lodging underneath Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Previous to Groff, employers had been free to disclaim a non secular lodging the place it imposed “greater than a de minimis value” on the employer’s enterprise. Following Groff, nevertheless, employers should now present that the burden of granting a non secular lodging “would end in substantial elevated prices in relation to the conduct of its specific enterprise.” This case has implications for all employers evaluating worker requests for spiritual lodging, and ought to be fastidiously thought-about when granting or denying such requests.
Gerald Groff, the plaintiff in Groff, was an evangelical Christian rural postal provider employed by the USA Postal Service (“USPS”) in Pennsylvania. Groff believed that Sundays ought to be dedicated to worship and relaxation, slightly than labor. Throughout Groff’s employment, USPS contracted with a 3rd social gathering e-commerce web site to ship their packages on Sundays and scheduled Groff, amongst different carriers, for Sunday work. Though Groff requested a non secular lodging to be relieved of Sunday obligation, his request was denied. When Groff refused to report back to work on Sundays, different employees members had been required to take over his job duties. In response to USPS, this resulted in vital disruptions to its enterprise, a number of worker complaints, and not less than one union grievance from an worker required to tackle Groff’s shifts. USPS subjected Groff to progressive self-discipline whereas he refused to report back to work for over twenty Sunday shifts. Groff resigned and sued USPS for spiritual discrimination in violation of Title VII.
Below Title VII, employers are obligated to accommodate an worker’s spiritual beliefs and practices until it imposes an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the employer’s enterprise. Previous to Groff, courts evaluated whether or not a requested lodging imposed an “undue burden” underneath the take a look at set by the Supreme Court docket within the 1977 case Trans World Airways, Inc. v. Hardison, which held that an lodging imposed an undue burden the place it required an employer to bear “greater than a de minimis value.” Making use of Hardison, each the trial courtroom that originally reviewed Groff’s case and the USA Court docket of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed USPS’s resolution to disclaim Groff’s lodging request. Extra particularly, the Third Circuit held that Groff’s exemption request imposed greater than a de minimis value as a result of it “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the office and workflow, and diminished worker morale.”
Groff appealed to the Supreme Court docket, asking it to rethink Hardison’s “de minimis value” take a look at. As an alternative, Groff urged the Court docket to undertake the take a look at to guage whether or not a requested lodging constitutes an “undue burden” underneath the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which requires an employer to point out that the lodging would impose a “vital problem or expense.” USPS, however, requested the Court docket to affirm Hardison and defer to the U.S. Equal Employment Alternative Fee’s interpretations of what constitutes an “undue burden” within the spiritual lodging context.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court docket overturned the Third Circuit, ruling that it utilized the mistaken take a look at to Groff’s Title VII claims. Nonetheless, the Court docket declined to undertake both Groff or USPS’s proposed assessments, holding that each went “too far.” Analyzing Hardison and the language of Title VII, the Court docket decided that the “de minimis value” take a look at was an misguided interpretation of Hardison’s holding, and set the bar too low. As Justice Alito famous, that normal, “if taken actually, prompt that even a pittance is perhaps an excessive amount of for an employer to be compelled to endure.” As an alternative, the Supreme Court docket held that the suitable take a look at to find out whether or not a requested spiritual lodging imposes an undue burden underneath Title VII is whether or not it “would end in substantial elevated prices in relation to the conduct of its specific enterprise,” making an allowance for “all related components at hand, together with the actual lodging at problem and their sensible affect in mild of the character, measurement and working value of an employer.” Justice Alito concluded that the Third Circuit’s utility of the “de minimis value” take a look at “might have led the courtroom to dismiss a lot of doable lodging, together with these involving the price of incentive pay, or the executive prices of coordination with different close by stations with a broader set of staff,” and remanded Groff for reconsideration underneath the brand new take a look at, noting that USPS might nonetheless finally prevail.
In mild of Groff, an employer’s denial of an worker’s spiritual lodging request turns into harder to justify. Whereas the usual for spiritual lodging stays decrease than the usual for disability-related lodging underneath the ADA, a displaying of “substantial elevated prices” will not be insignificant. Employers confronted with spiritual lodging requests ought to fastidiously assess the character of the request and the affect on their enterprise individually and discover all accessible options previous to denying a request. We are going to proceed to observe the affect of the Supreme Court docket’s resolution in Groff and supply updates as they change into accessible.
