The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision yesterday that employers cannot deny an employee's request for a religious accommodation unless it causes more than a minimal hardship on the business.
In the case Groff v. DeJoy, the justices ruled in favor of a U.S. Postal worker who claimed that he could not work on Sunday due to religious reasons. In ruling against the Postal Service, the Supreme Court held that employers are required to accommodate religious beliefs as long as the accommodation does not impose an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.”
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, clarified that the term “undue hardship” as being more than a “de minimis” cost. The “de minimis” or trifling cost that the Supreme Court had defined in previous cases seems to have been discarded by Justice Alito. Instead, the opinion suggests that if an employer denies a religious accommodation, then the employer has the burden of showing that the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” for its business under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Experts say that this decision will be especially important for religious minorities such as Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and others who have in the past brought a sizable number of cases after being denied accommodations by employers. Other experts argue that the decision will be harmful because it could open the door to allow discrimination in the guise of religious freedom.
This unanimous decision by the court has drastically changed the “undue hardship” standard, and thus could make it easier for employees to secure religious accommodations in the workplace. Understanding how to implement religious accommodations for workers, as well as protecting one’s business from new hardships will be an important consideration for employers moving forward.
As always, it is important for employers to consult with legal counsel in order to better understand their ever-changing responsibilities.
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Agreement
- Wage & Hour
- Employment Discrimination
- At Will Employment
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- Civil Rights
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- COVID-19
- Contract Employees
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Tax Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Regulatory Law
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Title VII
- Federal Trade Commission
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Harassment
- Contracts
- Transgender Issues
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Public Education
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Cannabis
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements
- Michigan Employers Can Legally Resist Union Organizing Efforts
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision Reinstates Previous Versions of Wage Laws
- Union Power in Michigan: Is it Real or Imagined?
- Employers Should act Now to Address Rising DOL Salary Thresholds for Exempt Employees
- Is This the end of the Employee Non-Compete Clause?