Contact Us
Categories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Copyright
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Intellectual Property
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Lane v. Franks
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- KYSHRM 2013
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- SHRM
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Employer Mandate
- FICA
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Severance Pay
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Crisis Management
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Supreme Court Remodels Title VII Religious Accommodations in Groff v. DeJoy
For nearly 50 years, the common test of religious accommodation from the Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. case was that, if a religious accommodation required more than a de minimis cost, it was asking too much of an employer under Title VII. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that this standard needs a reset, and employers may be in for a few changes.
In Groff, the plaintiff was a mail deliverer who sincerely celebrates Sunday as the Sabbath day of his faith and accordingly has requested not to work that day. The United States Postal Service didn’t deliver on Sundays when he joined the organization, but it has since started doing so because of the rise in online shopping package deliveries. After his location began doing Sunday deliveries, he transferred to a more rural station that did not. When that station began doing the same, however, he started to miss scheduled Sunday shifts and received progressive discipline for these missed shifts. He resigned to avoid termination and sued under Title VII, which makes it unlawful for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion.”
Of course, Title VII includes a built-in standard of reasonableness, that religious observance and practice must be accommodated “unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s…religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Since Hardison, what constitutes an “undue hardship” for religious accommodations under Title VII has largely been interpreted to mean anything more than a de minimis cost to the employer.
Rather than overrule Hardison, the Groff decision purports to merely tweak that understanding by moving from a “more than de minimis” standard to one of whether a religious accommodation would impose a “substantial” hardship on the business. Specifically, to show an undue hardship, the employer “must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
That is a fairly major clarification, but the Groff decision seems fairly confident that it’s in line with EEOC interpretations and says employers may not even notice at all. It’s true that the EEOC has been clarifying what costs are and aren’t de minimis, and items such as swapped shifts, temporary costs, and administrative costs aren’t enough to meet the bar. But the Groff court stopped short of ratifying the EEOC’s interpretations, all of which are likely to need a revamp after this decision.
Finally, the Groff decision made a few more clarifications of interest. First, when assessing a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business”, impacts on coworkers are only relevant to the extent the impacts go on to affect the conduct of the business. Second, it is important to note that the Groff court reiterated that Title VII requires an employer to “reasonably accommodate” and employee’s practice of religion and, in doing so, must do more than just assess the employee’s proposed accommodation. Instead, it must explore and consider other potential accommodations as well.
Where does that leave employers? Understanding EEOC guidelines on religious accommodation is a good start, since the Groff court more than hints that they’re likely fairly close to the standard already. Beyond that, it’s important for employers faced with religious accommodation requests to evaluate them in good faith in light of whether they pose a substantial burden to the conduct of business. The new test may only muddy already murky waters, so the ease of application remains to be seen.
Jason R. Hollon is a Member of McBrayer law. His law practice primarily focuses in the areas of employment law, employment litigation, civil investigations and estate and trust litigation. He is in the firm's Lexington office and can be reached at jhollon@mcbrayerfirm.com or at (859) 231-8780, ext. 1147.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.