Groff v. DeJoy: A Landmark Decision on Religious Accommodations and Employer Hardship

By Carson Blakely

October 9, 2023

The Supreme Court of the United States recently delivered a ruling in the case Groff v. DeJoy,^[1] in which it considered the requirements for giving religious accommodations and determining undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This case represents a substantial divergence from the precedent established over fifty years ago in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,^[2]and it sheds light on the friction between an employee’s religious beliefs and the practical duties of an employer.

Understanding the gravity of the Groff v. DeJoy ruling requires an exploration of its historical context, notably the pivotal case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison in 1977.^[3] The Hardison case set the precedent for interpreting what constitutes an “undue hardship” under Title VII, particularly concerning religious accommodation requests.^[4] The court concluded that any cost greater than de minimis, or insignificant, to the employer, could be deemed an undue hardship, relieving employers from providing the requested accommodation.^[5] This de minimis standard has been a linchpin in cases related to religious accommodations at work for nearly fifty years, but often fell short of adequately protecting employees’ religious rights and practices.^[6]

Postal worker Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, believed Sundays should be set aside for worship and rest rather than secular work.^[7] Initially, his position did not require him to work on Sundays.^[8] However, this changed when USPS began facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon.^[9] Groff was subjected to progressive discipline for his refusal to work on Sundays, which ultimately led to his resignation, despite his efforts to evade Sunday work by changing stations.^[10] The introduction of Groff into this scenario changed the course, and the institution of Sunday deliveries due to growing online shopping demand led to a conflict between Groff’s religious beliefs and his job requirements.^[11]

Groff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, claiming that USPS could have accommodated his Sabbath observance on Sunday without undue burden to its business operations.^[12] Both Groff and the United States Solicitor General argued for a “substantial cost” to the employer as the correct interpretation of “undue hardship” under Title VII.^[13] The Solicitor General argued for a stricter “substantial cost” standard, asserting that it better aligned with the principles of Title VII and broader constitutional mandates for protecting religious freedoms.^[14]

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, holding that “showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’. . . does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.”^[15] The Court stated that it is the responsibility of the business to demonstrate that providing a reasonable accommodation would considerably increase corporate costs.^[16]

Groff v. DeJoy serves as a pivotal case in employment law, redefining the standards for religious accommodations and undue hardship. Employers should be vigilant in reviewing their accommodation policies and practices to align with this clarified standard. This landmark decision has significant implications for employers. Now more than ever, businesses need to rethink their approaches to requests for religious accommodations and justify any denials with evidence of a substantial increase in operational costs. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach, considering the employer’s nature, size, and operating cost when determining undue hardship.

---

[1] Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023). 

[2] Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 84.

[5] Id.

[6] Groff, 143 S. Ct. at 2279. 

[7] Id. at 2286.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] See id. at 2286.

[12] Id. at 2287.

[13] Id. at 2286.

[14] Id. at 2293.

[15] Id. at 2281.

[16] Id.