The U.S. Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General decision revisits the Court’s guidance on religious accommodation and what constitutes an “undue burden”, which could impact how employers make religious accommodation decisions in the future.

The case involves Gerard Groff, an Evangelical Christian employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Hired in 2012, the employee’s initial role did not require him to work on Sunday. This changed in 2013, after the Postal Service began making Sunday deliveries as part of a new business agreement.

To avoid the requirement to work on Sundays, the plaintiff transferred to a rural facility. However, this facility also began making Sunday deliveries and Groff was expected to work some Sundays. He refused to work based on his religious beliefs. While redistributing the plaintiff’s Sunday deliveries to other staff members, the Postal Service put the plaintiff on progressive discipline, and he eventually resigned.

Groff sued the Postal Service under Title VII, asserting the Postal Service could have accommodated his religious practices without undue hardship on operations. The Postal Service countered, and the District Court and 3rd Circuit Appellate Courts agreed, that requiring the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship under the Supreme Court’s prior doctrine in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison.

In reversing the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that many lower courts incorrectly apply “de minimis” language as the standard for assessing accommodations. Instead, they should look to Title VII which states an “undue burden [is one that results in] substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of a particular business.” While an exhaustive list of what meets this threshold was not provided, the Court did share what does not constitute an “undue burden,” including: temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, and administrative costs.

A concurring opinion, coauthored by two justices, argued that the impact on coworkers should be considered and could tip the scale in favor of finding an “undue burden” given the difficulties of finding and retaining workers. Groff was remanded to the trial court, so this analysis was not applied.

As they can no longer rely on the prior de minimus test, employers should work closely with employment counsel to analyze an employee’s request for a religious accommodation before determining whether granting the request would represent an undue hardship.

Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977)