Employers should take heed of two recent cases concerning Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). First, on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) “clarified” the undue burden standard applied to requests for religious accommodations, holding that an employer must show that granting the request would result in substantial increased costs to the conduct of its business. Second, SCOTUS accepted a case that may help clarify what actions can form the basis for a Title VII discrimination claim. This alert summarizes and provides the key takeaways from both the opinions and steps employers should take as a result.

GROFF v. DEJOY

In Groff v. DeJoy, SCOTUS clarified and changed the religious accommodation standard under Title VII that employers and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) apply when considering requests for accommodation based on religious belief. In the case, Groff, a carrier for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), claimed he was denied his request for religious accommodation not to work on Sundays. Under Title VII, an employer must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business. “Undue hardship” is undefined under Title VII, and for almost 50 years, lower courts have relied on a “more than de minimis cost” on the employer standard, set out in the Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (“Hardison”) case.

In a unanimous opinion, SCOTUS effectively dismantled the “de minimis” framework and created a new, much higher standard for employers to meet, prior to denying a religious accommodation. It stated that the “de minimis” framework: (1) had effectively outweighed the “substantial costs or expenditures” discussion in Hardison; and (2) that the term “undue hardship” mitigates against the “de minimis” standard. Under the “clarified” standard, when claiming “undue hardship” in accommodating a religious person, “an employer must show [] that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Court explained that employers must do more than just conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship; rather, consideration of other options would also be necessary, including voluntary shift swapping.

The Court declined to apply the “significant expense or difficulty” analysis and precedent established in cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and explained that the “clarified” standard requires a case-by-case factual analysis. The Court left employers without clear guidance on how to apply the standard, but stated that the decision will “prompt little, if any change in the EEOC’s guidance” regarding employers’ approach to religious accommodation.

To prepare for new requests for religious accommodations, employers should keep the following takeaways in mind:

• Takeaway 1: Employers must assess each religious accommodation request on a case-by-case basis and document their decisions.
• Takeaway 2: Employers should review existing policies, procedures and trainings to comply with the new heightened standard. Employers need to educate and train professionals regarding how to make decisions regarding requests for religious accommodation.
• Takeaway 3: When assessing “substantial increased costs,” employers should consider factors such as how the business is impacted. This may include, among other things, assessing which operations are dependent on the requester’s presence, including opening during business hours, processes or work that cannot be performed, lost revenue as a result, and impact on customer expectations due to incomplete orders or lack of vital coverage. Employers can also consider how fellow employees are impacted, including inability to take breaks during shifts, decreased days off, and increased errors. However, it is not enough to simply state that there will be an impact on other employees. Post-Groff, to constitute “undue hardship,” employers must additionally show: (1) how the employees are impacted; (2) that the impact on other employees relates directly to the conduct of the employer’s business; and (3) whether this impact constitutes a substantial increase in cost.
• Takeaway 4: Employers should consider what operational changes or modifications they can offer as alternatives to reasonable accommodation requests.

MULDROW v. ST. LOUIS

Additionally, employers should pay attention to the upcoming SCOTUS decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis. SCOTUS granted the petition for writ of certiorari on the limited question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions, absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused significant disadvantage.

The case involves a female sergeant that was transferred from a prestigious task force to an administrative position. She claimed it was due to her gender. She was later denied various requests to be transferred to other positions. Sgt. Muldrow filed a gender discrimination claim against the City of St. Louis.

Under Title VII, an employer is prohibited from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” To show such gender discrimination, Sgt. Muldrow had to show, among other things, that she experienced an adverse employment action. The Court found that she failed to show this, as her transfer did not result in a diminution to her title, salary, or benefits, and she did not suffer from a significant change in working conditions or responsibilities. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the EEOC urged SCOTUS to hear the case and to address what actions can be the basis for a Title VII discrimination suit, arguing that certain courts are applying the law too narrowly to only apply to hiring, firings, promotions, and demotions. The agencies urged SCOTUS to grant certiorari to clarify the range of prohibited conduct that can give rise to a Title VII claim. The Court will hear the case during its October 2023 term. Employers should closely watch this case, as it has implications on how they can/should make employment decisions.

Hinckley Allen’s Labor & Employment attorneys will continue to closely watch these decisions and guidance that stems from them and provide updates as they become available. In the meantime, please reach out to the Hinckley Allen Labor & Employment Group with questions or for assistance.

Research and drafting assistance from summer associate, Bidushi Adhikari.