{"id":6924,"date":"2023-07-06T21:20:25","date_gmt":"2023-07-07T01:20:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/employerdefensereport.com\/?p=6924"},"modified":"2026-03-12T15:56:18","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T19:56:18","slug":"the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Title VII prohibitions on employment discrimination extend to employers who refuse to accommodate employees with sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.\u00a0 Previously, employers could only deny religious accommodations if the accommodation would impose an undue hardship or more than a minimal burden on the operation of the business.\u00a0The undue hardship standard was initially developed in a 1977 case called\u00a0<em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/span><\/em><em>\u00a0<\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">(1977). In that case, the Court held that an employer must allow religious accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Notably, the Court defined an undue hardship as any accommodation that would cause more than a <em>de minimis<\/em> cost for the employer. Examples of instances that were more than <em>de minimis<\/em> or would qualify as undue hardships included: violating a seniority system; causing a lack of necessary staffing; jeopardizing security or health; or costing the employer more than a minimal amount.<\/span><!--more--><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The <em>de minimis<\/em> cost standard was relied upon by lower courts and the EEOC for almost<\/span> 50 years. However, last week, the Supreme Court replaced the\u00a0<em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">de minimis<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">\u00a0standard in<\/span><em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">\u00a0Groff v. DeJoy<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">. In<em>\u00a0Groff<\/em><\/span>, the Court held that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in\u00a0<em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"><strong>substantially increased costs<\/strong><\/span><\/em><em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">\u00a0<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">concerning the conduct of its particular<\/span> business. The Court reasoned that because in\u00a0<em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Hardison<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, the<\/span> Court repeatedly referred to \u201csubstantial\u201d burdens, an \u201c\u2019undue hardship\u2019 is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer\u2019s business.\u201d The Court stated that this more demanding standard is also more consistent with the text of the phrase \u201cundue hardship.\u201d It stated that a hardship \u201cis more severe than a mere burden,\u201d and must be excessive or unjustifiable.<\/p>\n<p>The facts of\u00a0<em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Groff<\/span><\/em><em>\u00a0<\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are straightforward. Groff, an Evangelical mail delivery employee, observed Sunday as the Sabbath. When his employer, USPS, agreed to allow deliveries on Sundays, Groff was eventually required to work on Sundays. Groff ultimately refused and was subjected to progressive discipline before ultimately resigning. The Third Circuit ruled against Groff, basing its decision on its belief that accommodating Groff\u2019s practice of refraining from work on Sundays would cause USPS to suffer undue hardship, as the costs imposed were more than\u00a0<\/span><em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">de minimis<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">\u00a0because they \u201cimposed on his coworkers,<\/span> disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.\u201d\u00a0As part of its ruling, the Court sent the case back to the Third Circuit to apply the new substantial burden standard, and because as a result, the Third Circuit could\u00a0<span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">have overlooked other possible accommodations, such as \u201cthe cost of incentive pay, or the administrative costs of coordination with other nearby stations with a broader set of employees.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As a result of this decision, employers who are confronted with religious accommodation requests should carefully analyze\u00a0what accommodations they consider providing to their employees. We at Conn Maciel Carey LLP are here to help, so please do not hesitate to reach out with questions.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Title VII prohibitions on employment discrimination extend to employers who refuse to accommodate employees with sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.\u00a0 Previously, employers could only deny religious accommodations if the accommodation would impose an undue hardship&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[815],"tags":[831],"class_list":["post-6924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discrimination-harassment-retaliation","tag-accessibility-ada-accommodations"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Title VII prohibitions on employment discrimination extend to employers who refuse to accommodate employees with sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.\u00a0 Previously, employers could only deny religious accommodations if the accommodation would impose an undue hardship&hellip;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Darius Rohani-Shukla\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Darius Rohani-Shukla\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Darius Rohani-Shukla\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":506,\"keywords\":[\"Accessibility &amp; ADA Accommodations\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Discrimination, Harassment &amp; Retaliation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"Employer Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey LLP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e\",\"name\":\"Darius Rohani-Shukla\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Darius Rohani-Shukla\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/author\\\/drohanishukla\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report","og_description":"The Title VII prohibitions on employment discrimination extend to employers who refuse to accommodate employees with sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.\u00a0 Previously, employers could only deny religious accommodations if the accommodation would impose an undue hardship&hellip;","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/","og_site_name":"Employer Defense Report","article_published_time":"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00","author":"Darius Rohani-Shukla","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Darius Rohani-Shukla","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/"},"author":{"name":"Darius Rohani-Shukla","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e"},"headline":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test","datePublished":"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/"},"wordCount":506,"keywords":["Accessibility &amp; ADA Accommodations"],"articleSection":["Discrimination, Harassment &amp; Retaliation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/","name":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test - Employer Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-07-07T01:20:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T19:56:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-supreme-court-just-changed-the-undue-hardship-religious-accommodation-test\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court Just Changed the Undue Hardship Religious Accommodation Test"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/","name":"Employer Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/3e615b6e9b7a4f04b35ce2204c194b5e","name":"Darius Rohani-Shukla","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3cfe7150d564b58c0d7b73b85d42b93aa0c6d28429b05e39fd8ee1fdbd03cb56?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Darius Rohani-Shukla"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/author\/drohanishukla\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6924"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9575,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6924\/revisions\/9575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}