Religious accommodation ruling draws broad support

A unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case protecting employees’ rights to religious accommodations in the workplace drew broad-based support from groups spanning the religious spectrum.

In its June 29 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court said if an employer denies an employee an accommodation to his or her religious beliefs, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires the employer to show an accommodation would result in substantial increased cost.

The court rejected rulings by a district court and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit against U.S. Postal Service worker Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs.

When Groff took a mail delivery job in 2012, it did not regularly involve work on Sunday. However, that changed when the U.S. Postal Service agreed to begin facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon.

‘Substantial increased costs’

Lower courts cited Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which stated “requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.”

The Supreme Court rejected the “de minimis”—meaning “small or trifling”—language as the governing standard, instead focusing on “undue hardship.”

“The Court thinks it is enough to say that what an employer must show is that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of a particular business,” the June 29 ruling delivered by Associate Justice Samuel Alito stated.

“Courts must apply the test to take into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer.”

The Supreme Court ruling further stated: “Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, an employer must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship.”

In February, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission joined in an amicus brief—along with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Anti-Defamation League—asking the Supreme Court to revisit Trans World Airlines v. Hardison and the “de minimis cost” standard.

“Federal and state judicial reports are littered with cases where the lax ‘de minimis cost’ standard has put honest men and women in the intolerable position of choosing between their jobs and their faith,” the brief stated.

‘A victory for religious minorities’

Holly Hollman, BJC general counsel, said the Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling “upholds religious freedom protections consistent with congressional intent and clarifies the duties of employers.”

“This decision is a victory for religious minorities, who disproportionately claim the need for workplace religious accommodations,” Hollman said. “It provides guidance to lower courts to ensure the statute works as it was designed. ‘Substantial increased costs’ is an improved test for applying Title VII.

“Providing workplaces free from religious discrimination requires all businesses to consider how some religious observances conflict with general work rules and business operations. The statute requires religious accommodations that protect workers without undue harm to business. This decision clarifies that the statute means what it says.

“While there will certainly be future disputes, today’s unanimous decision points us in a positive direction where all Americans across ideological and religious differences can come together to defend faith freedom for all.”

On Twitter, ERLC President Brent Leatherwood called the Supreme Court decision “a win for religious liberty in the workplace” and “a win for people of faith at work.”

Kelly Shackelford, president and chief counsel of Plano-based First Liberty, called the court’s decision “a landmark victory.”

“No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” Shackelford said. “The court’s decision today restores religious freedom to every American in the workplace. This decision will positively help millions and millions of Americans—those who work now and their children and grandchildren.”

John Bursch, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to grant religious accommodations in the absence of “substantial increased costs” to a business.

“This standard protects all Americans’ right to live and work in a manner consistent with their faith.”

He also voiced approval that “coworker dislike of religious beliefs or practices is ‘off the table’ for consideration” when determining a religious accommodation.