USSC To Hear Case to Heighten the Standard for Employers to Grant Religious Accommodations

By Christopher T. Vrountas, Esquire and Allison C. Ayer, Esquire, Vrountas, Ayer & Chandler, P.C.

On April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Groff v. DeJoy, a case that concerns whether an employer must accommodate its employee’s request not to work on Sunday because of his religious beliefs. For more than 50 years, Federal courts have held that employers need not accommodate the religious practice of their employees in the event such requested accommodation would impose an “unduehardship”ontheemployer Courtshaveapplieda“deminimiscost”standardto determine when a requested accommodation might constitute an undue hardship under Title VII Given the arguments on appeal, the Groff case could establish a new, higher, “undue hardship” standard in religious accommodations cases Should that happen, the higher standard would impose a greater duty for employers to accommodatereligiouspracticeoftheiremployeesintheworkplaceandmakeitmuch more difficult for employers to deny any request for religious accommodation. Here is whereweare:

GeraldGroffbeganworkingfortheUnitedStatesPostalService(“USPS”)in2012asaRural Carrier Associate or “RCA.” It is the job of an RCA to cover for national career postal serviceemployeeswhomustbeabsentfromtheirregulardeliveryduties.Groffidentifies as Christian. He observes a Sunday Sabbath, believing that the day is meant solely for worship and rest, and he accordingly sought an exemption from any work on Sundays. ForaperiodoftimeGroff’sPostmasterexemptedGrossfromSundayworksolongashe covered other shifts throughout the week. But, in 2013, USPS signed a contract to deliver packages for Amazon including on Sundays A few years later, USPS and all national carrieremployeesenteredintoanagreementthatestablishedtheprocessofscheduling employees for Sunday and holiday Amazon delivery The process prevented the post officefromcontinuingtoofferGrofftheoptionofworkingextrashiftsduringtheweekto avoid Sunday shifts. In lieu of this option, the Postmaster offered to send emails each time Groff was scheduled to work on Sundays asking for volunteers to cover the shifts. But this approach failed to consistently accommodate Groff’s desire not to work on Sundays. Furthermore, when Gross did not show up for his scheduled shifts, other RCAs were required to deliver more mail than they otherwise would have on Sundays due to Groff’sabsence.

Continues...

The Postmaster himself even had to deliver mail on Sundays because of Groff’s absences.Grofffacedprogressivedisciplineasaresultandheeventuallyresigned.Groff suedUSPSforfailingtoprovideareasonableaccommodationforhisreligiouspracticeof notworkingonSunday.

Title VII Of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual because of that person’s religion It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employee’s religious beliefs unless doing so could cause an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, the Supreme Court in 1977 established what constitutes an “undue hardship” in the context of a request for a religious accommodation. In a 7-2 decision,theCourtruledthatanemployersuffersan“unduehardship”toaccommodate an employee’s religious practices and beliefs whenever doing so would require an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost.” This standard requires employers to establishrelativelyminimaleconomicorefficiencycostinordertoavoidhavingtogrant areligiousaccommodation.

Applying the Hardison “undue hardship” standard, the lower courts all ruled against Groff. In essence, those Courts found that exempting Groff from Sunday work required more than a de minimis cost on USPS because it imposed disproportionately on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow and diminished employee morale, because other workers had to disproportionately bear the burden of Sunday work and giveuptheirfamilytimeandabilitytoattendchurchservicesiftheywouldhavelikedto

On appeal, Groff seeks, not only to overturn the lower courts, but to change the entire standardforestablishingunduehardshipforreligiousaccommodationsunderTitleVII In essence, Groff asks the Court to replace the relatively low “de minimis cost” standard withamuchhigher“significantdifficulty”standard.GroffspecificallyasksthattheCourt require employers to prove that a requested religious accommodation would impose significant costs difficulty or expense to the Company before they can lawfully deny a religious accommodation. In this way, Groff advocates for aligning the undue hardship standard already used for disability accommodations to the religious accommodation settings.ForGroff,thisproperlyputsthetwosituationsonequalfootingandavoidsunfair results.

What does this mean? Under the law today, it is much easier for an employer to prove “undue hardship” in the religious accommodation context as compared to a disability accommodation case. For example, an employer might well be legally required to alter the snack break schedule for a diabetic employee who must maintain blood sugar levels, while lawfully denying a requested change in the meal break schedule for a Muslim employee seeking accommodation for Ramadan If Groff succeeds at the Supreme Court, the employees’ respective requests for accommodation would be scrutinized under the same standard, and both might be required to enjoy their desired breakscheduleabsentashowingof“significantdifficultyorexpense.”

Continues...

Groff argues that this is the only way for religious employees to enjoy the “preferential” treatment intended from Title VII. (“Title VII commands employers to afford ‘favored treatment’–not‘mereneutrality’–toemployees’religiouspractices.”)

Groffalsorequeststhatthenewstandardrequireanemployertoshownotonlythatthe religious accommodation has a significant impact on the employee’s co-workers, but alsoontheconductoftheemployer’sbusinessitself Inotherwords,asignificantburden on co-workers alone without a showing of actual, significant harm to the employer’s business,couldnotestablishunduehardship,ifGroffsucceedsattheUSSC

So, how will the case impact employers? Given its present composition, it seems quite likely,thattheSupremeCourtwillchangethelaw.Wehaveseeninrecentdecisionsthe Court’s explicit lack of regard for stare decisis, the principle that calls upon courts to follow the principles established by rulings in past cases. The Court’s current understandingofitsuninhibitedpowerisnotlimitedtoConstitutionalquestionssuchas those addressed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the Court struck down Roe v. Wade and the 50 years of Constitutional jurisprudence concerning abortion. Justice Thomas in several of his concurring opinions, including Gamblev.UnitedStates(2019),hasmadeitclearthat“precedencedoesnotsupersede the original meaning of a legal text” and may be disregarded where it is “demonstrably erroneous” What is “demonstrable” may well be in the eye of the judicial beholder, but the fact that the Court accepted the case in the first place, after 50 years of precedent, suggestsitsdesiretoreject50yearsofprecedenceprotectingemployersandtoadopt a stricter approach than the “undue hardship” standard in the context of workplace religiousaccommodations

The resulting ruling could well impose greater burden on employers to provide religious accommodations.Withthe“deminimus”standardgone,employerswillhavetoprovea significant financial cost, or a major burden to productivity, or great administrative or scheduling burden, or a tangible, sizable impact on morale, or a great impact on administration in order to deny religious accommodation. Requests not to work on Sabbathdays,orforprayerbreaks,orscheduledemandstoallowreligiousholidaysmay become standard. For those whose business focusses on weekends and holidays, including retail and hospitality establishments, a new, higher, “undue burden” standard could create significant challenges. Employers should pay close attention to how the Supreme Court ultimately rules. If decided on a schedule similar to past sessions, employerscanexpectadecisionissometimelaterthisyear,likelyinJune2023.

HAVEA QUESTIONOR CONCERN?

MembershipintheNHLRA meansbeingapartoftheonly organizationinthestate dedicatedtoprotecting, promoting,andeducatingour hospitalityindustry.

Contactusforquestionsorto sharewhatissuesareaffecting yourbusiness.We'reherefor you.

PRESIDENT&CEO: MikeSomers msomers@nhlra.com

EDUCATIONANDWORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: AmiePariseau apariseau@nhlra.com

MEMBERSHIPANDBUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: SamanthaPoole spoole@nhlra.com

OFFICEANDEVENTS: AubreyLynnGoodale agoodale@nhlra.com

SOCIALMEDIAAND MARKETING: JillyaJannetti jjannetti@nhlra.com

NHLRAOFFICE: (603)228-9585 info@nhlra.com