We recently wrote about Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court decision reinterpreting the meaning of “undue hardship” for Title VII religious accommodations to actually mean “undue hardship,” as opposed to minimal costs. In this follow-up post, we address the potential impact and trade-offs of the Groff decision on employers and the protection of religious rights in the workplace.

The Nominal Prohibition of the Pre-Groff De Minimus Standard

Before Groff, the test for undue hardship in the religious accommodations context was the most employer-friendly standard in Title VII discrimination law. Employers could deny requested religious accommodations if doing so would impose “more than a de minimis cost.” As a result, for some 50 years, religious discrimination has traditionally been viewed as the proverbial unwanted stepchild of Title VII, with pro-employer “undue hardship” exceptions to accommodation requirements that did not require much, either in terms of hardship or of being undue. In practice, the standard allowed for the denial of even minor accommodations, such as the relaxation of dress codes and coverage for occasional absences. Accordingly, when faced with a religious accommodation request, employers successfully focused on the inconvenience of the matter, with the result that employees had to rely more upon management’s goodwill than on HR being a good cop.

Groff Puts Religious Discrimination on Par with the Rest of Title VII

Under Groff v. DeJoy, the prohibition...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiX2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZvbGV5LmNvbS9lbi9p...