Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Undue Hardship Defense in Federal Religious Accommodation Claims
Fast Facts:
The Court found that the long-applied standard for the undue hardship defense related to religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII – when an employer can show an accommodation provides more than a de minimus costs to employer – was based upon an incorrectly interpreted Supreme Court case.
The correct standard for an undue hardship defense is when granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business.
The test should be applied in a commonsense way based upon facts specific to the particular accommodation request and employer.
This is not the same test as applied to requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The only relevant consideration of an accommodation impact on co-workers are those impacts that affect the conduct of the business.
An employer cannot merely assess the reasonableness of one accommodation, but must explore whether there is any reasonable accommodation that exists.
An employer should train their employees on this new standard and review each accommodation request in light of it.
Wait, Remind Me What the Standard Was?
You may have heard about the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) worker whose claims made it all the way to the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian, did not believe in working on Sundays, which he believed should be for resting and worship. Historically, the USPS did not deliver on Sundays, and Mr. Groff’s beliefs did not conflict with his job requirements. However, after the USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver on Sundays, mail carriers were generally required to work Sundays on a rotating basis.
Initially, Mr. Groff transferred to a USPS location that did not deliver on Sundays. When that location began to deliver on Sundays as well, the USPS tried to accommodate Mr. Groff by assigning his rotating shift to other employees, including the postmaster, whose job duties do not typically involve delivering mail. During this time, Mr. Groff also received progressive discipline, resulting in his eventual resignation.
He then sued USPS for failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. The District Court granted the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment, which the Third Circuit affirmed, finding that accommodation would have been an undue hardship for USPS. This finding was based upon prior precedent set by many lower courts interpreting a 1975 Supreme Court case – Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. – to mean that undue hardship resulted whenever there was more than de minimus cost to the employer.
What Is the New Undue Hardship Standard for Federal Religious Accommodation Claims?
The Supreme Court in Groff, however, found that Hardison had been incorrectly interpreted, and it was clear the Hardison court stated many times “an accommodation is not required when it entails substantial costs or expenditures.” Accordingly, the Court found in order to show undue hardship, and avoid providing a religious accommodation under federal law, an employer must show that “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Court stressed that the test must be applied in a way that takes into account all relevant factors in a particular case, including the accommodation(s) at issues and the practical impact on the business in light of the “nature size and operating cost of an employer,” and such test should be applied in a “commonsense manner.”
The Court refused to simply apply the same standard that exists for accommodations under the ADA – that an undue hardship exists only if it causes significant difficultly and expense to the employer, and as such, declined to apply the relevant ADA caselaw interpreting such standard.
The Court also, however, declined to confirm that all of the EEOC’s guidance on undue hardship based upon the Hardison case was accurate. Instead, the Court said that “a good deal of the EEOC’s guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by our clarifying decision today,” and appeared to suggest no undue hardship would exist where temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping or administrative costs were imposed by a religious accommodation, but indicated it would not be “prudent” to sanction all EEOC guidance that did not have the “benefit of the clarification we adopt today.”
OK, Anything Else?
The Court also found that since Hardison had been interpreted incorrectly over the decades, courts may have gotten it wrong on other recurring issues, which the Court took time to clarify.
First, the Court clarified that whether an accommodation impacts co-workers may be relevant to determining if there is a substantial increase in costs in relation to the conduct of the particular business, but only those impacts on the co-workers that affect the conduct of the business are relevant. Obviously, a co-worker’s dislike of certain religions, religious practices or expression, or the idea of accommodation itself cannot be considered in determining hardship.
Second, the Court clarified that “Title VII requires an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation(s).” Accordingly, the Court found it would be insufficient for an employer faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s to conclude requiring others to work overtime would constitute a hardship, and instead, such an employer would be required to consider other accommodation options, other than only the one requested. Some examples the Court provided in Groff’s instance were voluntary shift swapping, incentive pay, and coordination with other stations with a broader set of employees. In other words, employers should not simply stop after determining the suggested accommodation is an undue hardship, but instead, must seek to determine if other potential accommodations exist that would solve the conflict between the work requirement and the individual’s religious constraints.
Now What?
First and foremost, employers will want to review their current policies to ensure they are in line with this new standard, and most importantly, train staff who are determining whether to grant a religious accommodation on this new standard.
Second, employers should be mindful of state and local laws that may be different than the federal law. For instance, in New York State and New York City the undue hardship standard means an accommodation that requires significant expense or difficulty, and several factors must be considered. The bottom line is that each accommodation request should be evaluated based upon the facts and circumstances presented, and there should be no blanket rule that certain accommodations are not possible.
If you are an employer who would like more information on the recent clarification to the standard for the undue hardship defense in federal religious accommodation claims, contact Employment Law Services.