supreme court bosters standards for religious accommodations

Supreme Court Bolsters Standards for Religious Accommodations

By Thomas McKinney
Partner

With the Supreme Court’s end of term, there have been a number of big court decisions hitting headlines across the U.S. One such ruling is likely to have a significant impact on religious accommodation claims. Employers and employees alike should be aware of changes to the religious accommodation standard made in the unanimous Supreme Court decision released on June 29th in Groff v. DeJay. Here’s what you need to know.

Supreme Court Strengthens Religious Accommodations Standard

Per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Employers must accommodate an employee’s request for religious accommodation for a religious practice or observance unless it would create an undue hardship for the business. But, what does an “undue hardship” mean?

Previously, the Supreme Court ruled in Hardison that an employer is not required to provide a religious accommodation if honoring the request would impose more than a de minimis burden on the business. In other words, they do not have to grant the accommodation request if it would result in more than a trivial cost to the business. Groff has changed this standard. In fact, this recent decision sets the bar much higher meaning that employers will need to meet a higher threshold before they can deny a request for an accommodation requested on a religious basis. If challenged in court, employers will be met with a much more stringent test to see if the denial of a religious accommodation was indeed merited.

In Groff, the court ruled unanimously that an employer may only deny a religious accommodation request if it would result in substantially increased costs for the business. In other words, the standard for denial is now that the hardship imposed on the business is substantial as opposed to minimal. It is also important to note that the ruling directs lower courts to judge the impact on the business based on the particulars of the individual business. This means that the measure of the impact must be evaluated in relation to the size, nature, and operating costs of that particular business. Practically speaking, this also means that larger employers are less likely to be able to meet the standard for the denial of a religious accommodation request as they are more likely to have the resources in place which would prevent the accommodation from having a notable impact on business costs.

Additionally, the court made it clear that a business cannot claim an undue hardship that is based on religious intolerance. In Justice Alito’s words, “A hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religious, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice, cannot be considered undue. Bias or hostility to a religious practice or accommodation cannot supply a defense.”

New Jersey Employment Law Attorneys

For employers and employees, this recent Supreme Court ruling stands to have a notable impact going forward in regard to religious accommodation requests. Be on notice of your rights and responsibilities under this new standard. If you feel like you have been unjustly denied a religious accommodation request, talk to the team at Castronovo & McKinney. Contact us today.

About the Author
Tom McKinney is an experienced NJ Employment Lawyer in all major areas of labor and employment law, including discrimination, harassment, overtime violations, wage and hour claims, sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, LAD, FLSA, and all other employment law claims. Tom is admitted to practice in the States of New Jersey and New York, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, District of New Jersey, and United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to forming the firm, Tom practiced at Gibbons P.C. in Newark, NJ. If you have any questions regarding this article, contact Tom here today.