U.S. Supreme Court Bolsters Right of Employees to Request Religious Accommodations

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision yesterday that employers cannot deny an employee's request for a religious accommodation unless it causes more than a minimal hardship on the business.

In the case Groff v. DeJoy, the justices ruled in favor of a U.S. Postal worker who claimed that he could not work on Sunday due to religious reasons. In ruling against the Postal Service, the Supreme Court held that employers are required to accommodate religious beliefs as long as the accommodation does not impose an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, clarified that the term “undue hardship” as being more than a “de minimis” cost. The “de minimis” or trifling cost that the Supreme Court had defined in previous cases seems to have been discarded by Justice Alito. Instead, the opinion suggests that if an employer denies a religious accommodation, then the employer has the burden of showing that the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” for its business under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Experts say that this decision will be especially important for religious minorities such as Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and others who have in the past brought a sizable number of cases after being denied accommodations by employers. Other experts argue that the decision will be harmful because it could open the door to allow discrimination in the guise of religious freedom.

This unanimous decision by the court has drastically changed the “undue hardship” standard, and thus could make it easier for employees to secure religious accommodations in the workplace. Understanding how to implement religious accommodations for workers, as well as protecting one’s business from new hardships will be an important consideration for employers moving forward.

As always, it is important for employers to consult with legal counsel in order to better understand their ever-changing responsibilities.

Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Add a comment

Type the following characters: mike, november, tango, three, mike, november

* Indicates a required field.

Employment Law Guide

Topics

Recent Updates

Plunkett Cooney Blogs

Plunkett Cooney Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek