The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the pending case of Groff v. DeJoy, which focuses on the rules employers should follow when granting employee requests for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Groff, the Court considered whether it should uphold the Hardison standard, which states that an employer need not provide religious accommodations if doing so would cause an undue hardship or place more than a de minimis burden on the employer.
The Lower Court Rulings
Gerald Groff, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), filed this lawsuit for failing to accommodate his religious practice. As a Christian, Groff does not work on the Sunday Sabbath. Although the USPS does not deliver mail on Sundays, it contracts with Amazon to deliver packages, including on Sundays.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the USPS, finding that allowing Groff to be exempt from the regular rotation of employees performing Sunday deliveries created an undue hardship on the employer. Specifically, the court found that the accommodation would negatively affect Groff’s co-workers because they had to fill in Groff’s spot in the Sunday rotation schedule and might require the USPS to violate the collective bargaining agreement with its workers.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, finding that the requested accommodation would be an undue hardship for the USPS. In addition, that Court found that the religious accommodation disrupted the employer’s regular workflow and lowered employee morale.
The Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court focused on defining the “undue hardship” that would justify the employer rejecting the religious accommodation request of an employee. The U.S. Solicitor General representing the USPS argued that exempting Groff from working every Sunday violated his co-worker’s contractual rights, interfered with timely mail delivery, and caused at least one of his co-workers to quit. She advocated upholding the Hardison standard and its progeny as precedent.
However, Groff’s attorney claimed that the Court should define “undue hardship” in terms of “significant difficulty or expense” rather than relying on the previously used de minimis test outlined in Hardison, which he alleged forced employees to choose between their job and their faith. Furthermore, he argued that reduced employee morale does not constitute undue hardship.
Providing Religious Accommodations
Whether religious accommodation for workers is reasonable depends on the type of accommodation the employee requests and the job at issue. Some common examples of religious accommodations include scheduling changes, job reassignments, dress code modifications, unpaid leave to observe the Sabbath, and designating a private place in the workplace where religious observances can occur.
Employers should have religious accommodation request forms and policies in place in place. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in Groff before it recesses in June. If the Court alters the definition of undue hardship or how employers should consider religious accommodations, employers should be prepared to quickly revise their policies to conform with the Court’s decision.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- Colorado First State to Place Price Cap on Prescription Drug - November 27, 2025
