Share This Article:
Back to Blog

Will Groff v. DeJoy Change Religious Accommodations in the Workplace?

Will Groff v. DeJoy Change Religious Accommodations in the Workplace?

You want to keep your employees happy and feeling respected in their workplace—which can boost your retention. Sometimes doing that means keeping up with new legislation and carefully noting when big-ticket items hit the marble steps of the Supreme Court.  

Religious protections are a tricky mess of potential compliance issues, and you’re right (and smart!) to cross your t’s and dot your i’s regarding your employees’ religious practices.  

So here is BerniePortal to give you the scoop on your newest paranoia-inducing compliance test: SCOTUS is revisiting religious accommodations in the workplace, and your organization may be impacted.  

Free HR Courses with BernieU CTA


How Is Religion Protected in the Workplace Today? 

First, let’s breakdown the previous ruling, which we use as the standard today, into digestible pieces, so we know how exactly a change will affect your workplace policies.  

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered classes protected from discrimination in the workplace based on race, sex, religion, etc. Here’s the language from the bill:

U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(l), (2). The statute defines "religion" to include "all aspects of 

religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates

that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective

employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of

the employer's business."  Id. § 2000e(j).  

In 1977, the Supreme Court case Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison expanded on the bit in the Civil Rights Act that concerned religion. Here is what the court back then determined:

In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), this Court stated that an employer suffers an "undue hardship" in accommodating an employee's religious exercise whenever doing so would require the employer "to bear more than a de minimis cost." Id. at 84. 

That’s a little dense, as most lawyers tend to write, but this is a blog. So let’s skip the Scrabble-winning words and identify the key parts: 

      1. Religion is defined as observance (think Sunday morning church or ritual afternoon prayer, for example) and practice (eating only Kosher foods, following halal dietary restrictions, dressing in religious attire, etc.) as well as belief (self-explanatory).    

      2. An employer does not have to reasonably accommodate a current employee’s or potential employee’s religion if it could negatively impact the success of their business. An example would be if an employee of a small organization requested an accommodation that guaranteed Wednesdays and Saturdays off for religious observances. Due to the organization’s small size, losing the ability to schedule an employee for two full days a week could impact the success of the organization, so they wouldn’t have to accommodate that request because it is unreasonable.    

      3. The employer is not expected nor obligated to do anything above the “de minimis cost,” which means that the cost of a reasonable accommodation for religion doesn’t have to be anything more than a minor or trifling amount. 

So for about 45 years, this has been the lens through which business considers religion. With the potential ruling change, you may need to trade those glasses in for a different prescription. Let’s take a look. 


What Will a New SCOTUS Ruling on Religion Accommodations Change?

The case we should all be watching is Groff v. DeJoy. A USPS worker has brought suit against USPS for failing to accommodate his religious needs for Sundays off, claiming that scheduling conflicts led to disciplinary action against him. USPS is falling back on the de minimis reasoning that USPS is not legally obligated to provide accommodation for Sundays off as it could impact business.   

Counsel for the employee, Aaron Streett, has a potential solution to narrow the broad spectrum of de minimus reasoning. States like New York have enacted a requirement that employers must pass a test to determine if accommodations are reasonable. His point is: there is a solution, and it is in place in other parts of the United States.     

  • If you want to read Aaron Streett’s thoughts on his Supreme Court appearance, check out his notes.

In the case of this document, “test” does not mean a literal test—no multiple-choice or other graded responses are required. This sort of test is a legal document filled and filed according to the state laws of New York to ensure a requested religious accommodation is accepted or denied precisely as the law dictates. 

The purpose of New York’s test is to protect religious accommodations further, whereas some dissidents of Groff v. DeJoy argue that the de minimis clause is satisfactory for religious protections. Using this case to challenge the original 1977 ruling may push lawmakers to clarify the language of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison rather than throw de minimis around without structure or standardization. 

We don’t yet know if anything will change; SCOTUS may uphold the 1977 ruling, or they may overhaul how religion is treated in professional environments. Regardless of their ultimate decision, you can take steps today to protect yourself—and your organization—in case of significant changes.


New call-to-action 


How Can I Reasonably Accommodate Religion?

This question is tricky because it depends on your organization's size, needs, and location. But we can start you off with some actionable steps so you can be best prepared and rest easier that compliance police aren’t about to knock on your door. 

Step 1: Audit your current processes and policies for when employees make religious accommodations requests. This will give you background on to-date responses for religious accommodations and tell you what you have to work with. You may notice things that need immediate attention, or your processes and policies may be ironclad. It never hurts to check things over—and logging how often you audit this sort of information may be a “good faith” effort to ensure your organization complies with federal and state regulations.  

A “good faith” effort typically applies to Affirmative Action policies, but in HR, you know how important it is to at least try—and have a record of doing so. How often have you discussed employee performance and said, “Well, at least they’re trying!”? This context is a little more significant, but the fact remains that until we know how the ruling will shake out, auditing your current policies and trying to keep your organization compliant is your best bet for preparing for changes now and in the future.  

Step 2: Update yourself on local and federal laws. Some states have different compliance regulations than others, so you want to ensure you follow the rules for your location. Sometimes, laws are changed or updated, and the news doesn’t kick up a fuss that you notice. A quick Google search every so often can save you a lot of pain down the line.   

Step 3: Build a culture of compliance. Don’t stop at doing the legal minimum—encourage your people to get involved in understanding their own rights and responsibilities. Abe Turner, a multi-industry voice behind company culture and workers’ health and development, says,  

“Business owners in the United States today must abide by and stay compliant with more laws and regulations than at any other point in history…If you establish and ingrain your company’s values into the fabric of the culture, then your business is likely more risk averse” (Source). 

If your people are just as dedicated as you to keeping your organization running right, then most of the work is already done. And employees who see you making an effort to educate and enforce their rights will have more trust in you and your HR role. 

Step 4: Make sure everyone with a stake in this knows what's up. You can use an HRIS like BerniePortal to notify employees about changed religious accommodation policies and require them to sign their acknowledgment. If compliance police came knocking, a feature like that would go a long way toward proving your efforts to maintain compliance.   

Until the ruling, we wait. But like we said above, waiting time isn’t idle time. Keep yourself compliant and keep an eye on the news—or subscribe to our blog and follow us on LinkedIn for more legal breakdowns of the ongoing case. It’s your choice, of course (but I’m biased, so follow us!).  

Additional Resources

You can stay informed, educated, and up to date with important HR topics using BerniePortal’s comprehensive resources:

  • BernieU—free online HR courses, approved for SHRM and HRCI recertification credit
  • BerniePortal Blog—a one-stop shop for HR industry news
  • HR Glossary—featuring the most common HR terms, acronyms, and compliance
  • Resource Library—essential guides covering a comprehensive list of HR topics
  • HR Party of One—our popular YouTube series and podcast, covering emerging HR trends and enduring HR topics

Compliance Feature Demo CTA

Share This Article:

Related Posts

As a pro in the HR world, a situation may arise where the question of gross misconduct...

If your organization employs hourly workers, running payroll requires a detailed...

People leave your organization for a variety of reasons. 

Remember that summer you spent filing records, taking meeting notes, and carefully...

Submit a Comment