The U.S. Supreme Court today in Groff v. DeJoy,(Sup. Ct., June 29, 2023), held that lower courts have largely been misreading the Hardison case's standard for determining when accommodation of religious practices of employees imposes an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The case involves a postal worker who was seeking accommodation of his Sabbath observance. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Alito, the Court said in part:
Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the “more than de minimis” standard “literally” or in a manner that undermines Hardison’s references to “substantial” cost....With the benefit of comprehensive briefing and oral argument, we agree.
We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business....
[B]oth parties agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.”... As the Solicitor General put it, not all “impacts on coworkers . . . are relevant,” but only “coworker impacts” that go on to “affec[t] the conduct of the business.”...
An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself....
Second, ... Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations.... Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Hardison.... The Court does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis has “enhanced force” in statutory cases.De
