A Higher Bar for Religious Accommodations: Life After Groff v. DeJoy

Employers have long faced the challenge of balancing operational demands with employees’ requests for religious accommodations. Until recently, the law tilted heavily in favor of employers. That changed in June 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Groff v. DeJoy, redefining what qualifies as an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling makes clear: denying an accommodation now requires far more than pointing to inconvenience or minimal cost.

The Old Rule: A Minimal Burden Was Enough

For decades, the controlling precedent came from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977). Under that standard, employers could deny religious accommodations by showing that granting them imposed more than a “de minimis” cost, which holds a remarkably low and inconsistent threshold. In practice, even small inconveniences often justified denial, leaving employees with limited protections for religious observance.

The Supreme Court’s Shift in Groff v. DeJoy

The case arose from a U.S. Postal Service worker who sought Sundays off to observe his faith. The Court unanimously ruled that the “de minimis” test was inconsistent with the text and intent of Title VII. Going forward, employers must demonstrate that granting an accommodation would impose a “substantial increased cost in relation to the conduct of the business.”

This new phrasing sets a higher bar. It signals that minor disruptions or coworker dissatisfaction will no longer suffice to deny requests. Instead, employers must prove a significant impact on their operations.

What Qualifies as a Hardship Today?

The Court stopped short of laying down a rigid formula but offered clear guideposts:

Financial Impact

Costs must be substantial and relative to the scale of the employer. What is considered burdensome for a small business may not be for a large corporation.

Effect on Coworkers

General annoyance or resentment is not enough. Only when coworker impacts translate into direct harm. The impact on coworkers must be a direct, measurable disruption to business operations, such as unfilled shifts that compromise service quality, before it can be considered.

Operational Disruption

Situations that impair safety, efficiency, or compliance with other laws may constitute undue hardship.

The practical takeaway is that employers must now carefully document why an accommodation would significantly interfere with business, rather than citing inconvenience in broad strokes.

What Employers Should Do Now

The Groff decision calls for a more thoughtful approach to handling requests:

Revisit Policies

Update accommodation policies to align with the new legal framework.

Assess Individually

Evaluate each request on its own merits, considering your company’s size, resources, and operational needs.

Train Supervisors

Ensure managers and HR professionals understand the heightened standard and how to apply it.

Document Thoroughly

Maintain detailed records of requests, evaluations, and decisions, showing the rationale for granting or denying accommodations.

How This Standard Plays Out In the Workplace

Consider a small restaurant where an employee requests Saturday evenings off for religious observance. Under the old rule, the employer might have denied the request, citing scheduling difficulties. Under Groff, the employer must show that granting the request would impose a substantial burden on a business of its size. For example, leaving the restaurant understaffed during peak hours or requiring costly overtime from others may constitute a burden. Unless clearly documented and meets the criteria for substantial burden, the request must be accommodated.

Closing Thoughts

The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy represents a recalibration of workplace rights, strengthening protections for employees’ religious practices. For employers, it underscores the importance of engaging in genuine, case-by-case dialogue and ensuring that any denial of an accommodation is backed by clear, demonstrable evidence of substantial hardship.

Religious accommodations can no longer be brushed aside as minor inconveniences. Employers are expected to take requests seriously, evaluate them carefully, and document the process with rigor. By doing so, businesses not only maintain compliance but also reduce legal exposure.

If your organization is navigating religious accommodation requests in light of Groff v. DeJoy, our firm can help you adapt policies, strengthen compliance, and protect your business across all areas of employment law.