On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion about religious accommodation rules in Groff v. Dejoy. Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, believes that Sunday should be reserved for worship and rest. Back in 2012, Groff was hired as a mail delivery person by the US Postal Service. At first the job did not require any Sunday work; then that changed as the USPS agreed to facilitate Sunday deliveries for Amazon.

Groff Faced “Progressive Discipline”

Groff transferred to a rural station that did not do Sunday deliveries. But Sunday Amazon deliveries then began at the new station, and Groff was in a quandary. The USPS assigned Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other workers, and Groff received “progressive discipline” for not working on Sundays. Eventually he resigned from his position. Next, Mr. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that the USPS could have accommodated his Sabbath practice, “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.”

TWA Case Included “De Minimus” Language

Groff lost in the trial court when the court granted a summary judgment for USPS.  And the Third Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision based on a common view of the legal standard from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. The TWA case included language that it would be an undue hardship upon employers if they had to show more than a “de minimus” (or minimal) cost in providing a religious accommodation.

Disrupting the Workplace

In addition to holding an employer only to the “de minimus” standard, The Third Circuit Appeals court concluded that letting Mr. Groff have Sundays off had, “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.” But the Supreme Court in Groff interpreted the legal standard differently such that an employer must show that allowing a religious accommodation would result in “substantial” costs, as opposed to the prior de minimus standard.

Employers Must Show “Substantial” Cost to Deny Accommodation

Many courts have interpreted TWA based on its statement that “To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.” But TWA also clearly stated that accommodation is not required if it involves “substantial” costs, and the Groff Supreme court case says that the “de minimus” standard was not the proper test.

Groff Should Make it Harder to Deny Religious Exemption to Vaccines

Title VII mandates that employers “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious practices. And the TWA case required a showing of undue hardship upon employers in providing a religious accommodation. Title VII’s reference to “undue” burden for the employer means the burden must be “excessive or “unjustifiable,” and not merely any burden. Moving forward, this clarification from our highest court mean that folks seeking a religious exemption from, e.g., COVID-19 vaccines will likely have a stronger case and arguably cannot be denied based on hardship to an employer, unless the “substantial” cost test is met.