{"id":714,"date":"2023-02-02T12:26:30","date_gmt":"2023-02-02T17:26:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/?p=714"},"modified":"2023-04-24T17:03:06","modified_gmt":"2023-04-24T21:03:06","slug":"scotus-to-take-another-look-at-religious-accomodations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/2023\/02\/02\/scotus-to-take-another-look-at-religious-accomodations\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS to Take Another Look at Religious Accommodations"},"content":{"rendered":"

Employment litigators and Constitutional Law attorneys alike should pay close attention to the United States Supreme Court\u2019s calendar, as the Court recently agreed to take up a case that has the potential to change the way employers are required to accommodate employees based on an employee\u2019s sincerely held religious beliefs.\u00a0 On January 13, 2023, the SCOTUS granted certiorari in Groff v. DeJoy, <\/em>35 F.4th 162 (3d Cir. 2022), a case involving an evangelical Christian postal worker who claims his religious freedom was violated when he was forced to resign from his job as the only means of avoiding delivering Amazon packages on weekends. Critics and commentators have begun to weigh in, stating that the case has the potential to overturn the long-standing precedent for religious accommodations established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, <\/em>432 U.S. 63 (1977).<\/p>\n

THE LAW <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful \u201cto discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s … religion.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 Additionally, the Act dictates that an employer, short of an \u201cundue hardship,\u201d make \u201creasonable accommodations\u201d to the religious needs of its employees.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 A plaintiff claiming religious discrimination is required under Title VII to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.[3]<\/a> \u00a0To do that, an employee must show that he: (1) holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement; (2) informed his employer of the conflict; and (3) was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting job requirement.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show \u201ceither it made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious belief, or such an accommodation would [create] an undue hardship upon the employer and its business.\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0 The analysis begins with whether the employer offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee.[6]<\/a> If the employer did, then \u201cthe statutory inquiry is at an end.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 If the employer did not offer a reasonable accommodation, the inquiry is now whether the employee’s requested accommodation would cause the employer an undue hardship.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 It is important to note that whether the employer provided a reasonable accommodation and whether the accommodation would cause an undue hardship are separate and distinct inquiries.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

THE LANDMARK CASE: TWA v. Hardison,<\/em> 432 U.S. 63 (1977)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiff Larry Hardison (Hardison) was employed by Trans World Airlines (TWA) in a department – an airplane maintenance and overhaul base – that operated 24 hours a day throughout the year. \u00a0TWA employees were scheduled to work based on a seniority system in which employees bid on shifts, with the most senior employees having the first choice of shift assignments. The seniority system was negotiated in a collective-bargaining agreement between TWA and the employees\u2019 union. Because Hardison’s religious beliefs prohibited him from working on Saturdays, TWA accommodated him mainly because his seniority status allowed him to select shifts on days other than Saturdays.<\/p>\n

However, Hardison applied for and was transferred to a different position at TWA.\u00a0 In his new position, he now had little seniority.\u00a0 As a result, TWA could no longer accommodate his request to not work on Saturdays. TWA agreed to permit the union to seek a change of work assignments, however the union was not willing to violate the seniority system. \u00a0After TWA rejected a proposal that Hardison work only four days a week, no accommodation could be reached, and Hardison was discharged for refusing to work on Saturdays. \u00a0Hardison brought an action for injunctive relief against TWA and the union, claiming that his discharge constituted religious discrimination in violation of \u00a7 703(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\u00a0 The District Court ruled in favor of both TWA and the union, holding that the union’s duty to accommodate Hardison’s religious beliefs did not require it to ignore the seniority system, and that TWA had satisfied its “reasonable accommodations” obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the union but reversed the judgment for TWA, holding that TWA had not satisfied its duty to accommodate Hardison’s religious needs under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines. Both the union and TWA sought certiorari review.<\/p>\n

In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS reversed the Court of Appeals decision and held that TWA did in fact make reasonable efforts to accommodate Hardison. \u00a0These efforts included (1) meeting with Hardison several times in an effort to work together towards a solution; (2) accommodating Hardison any time there was a religious holiday that he needed off; (3) authorizing the union steward to search for employees willing to swap shifts with Hardison; and (4) attempting to find Hardison a different position within the organization that did not require Saturday work.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 The opinion, authored by Justice Byron White, notes that neither the EEOC nor Congress have ever suggested \u201cwhat sort of accommodations are \u2018reasonable\u2019 or when hardship to an employer becomes \u2018undue.\u2019[11]<\/a>\u00a0 The Court attempted to address this statement in part by announcing that \u201c[t]o require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION\u2019S RECENT PATH TO SCOTUS: Groff v. DeJoy<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiff Gerald Groff (Groff) is a Sunday Sabbath observer whose religious beliefs dictate that Sunday is meant for worship and rest.\u00a0 In 2012, Groff began working for the United States Postal Service (USPS).\u00a0 In 2013, the USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver Amazon packages, including on Sundays.\u00a0 Groff informed his Postmaster that he would not be reporting to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs.\u00a0 The Postmaster offered Groff several options to accommodate him, including allowing Groff to come in late after church on Sundays and finding other employees to cover his shift.\u00a0 When those options to accommodate Groff proved unsuccessful, the Postmaster himself would work the Sunday shift or another employee would be assigned to work an extra shift.\u00a0 The combination of the Postmaster trying to find coverage for Groff\u2019s scheduled Sundays, along with the Postmaster himself and other USPS employees having to work extra shifts, created a tense atmosphere.\u00a0 Groff was formally disciplined multiple times and eventually resigned from his position in January 2019.\u00a0 In his resignation letter, he stated that he decided to leave his job because he was unable to find an \u201caccommodating employment atmosphere with the USPS that would honor [his] personal religious beliefs\u201d and would instead pursue \u201cmore rewarding work\/service interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

Groff filed suit, and the District Court ruled in favor of the USPS on cross motions for summary judgement.\u00a0 Groff then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[13]<\/a>\u00a0 In a rather lengthy opinion, the court engaged in a linguistic analysis of the words \u201creasonable accommodations.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0 The court determined that the USPS did not \u201creasonably accommodate\u201d Groff because it did not successfully eliminate the conflict.\u00a0 The court then analyzed whether exempting Groff from Sunday work\u2014which would eliminate the conflict\u2014would result in an undue hardship.\u00a0 The court held that \u201cGroff’s proposed accommodation of being exempted from Sunday work would cause an undue hardship. Exempting Groff from working on Sundays caused more than a de minimis cost on USPS because it actually imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale . . .\u201d[15]<\/a>\u00a0 Accordingly, the court affirmed the District Court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

GROFF\u2019S PETITION TO SCOTUS AND WHAT COMES NEXT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In August of 2022, Groff filed a Petition For A Writ of Certiorari with the SCOTUS, asking the Court to address the following issues:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Whether this Court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing Title VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,<\/em> 432 U.S. 63 (1977); and<\/li>\n
  2. Whether an employer may demonstrate \u201cundue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business\u201d under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s co-workers rather than the business itself.[16]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    On January 13, 2023, the SCOTUS granted certiorari.[17]<\/a>\u00a0 Critics and commentators have begun to weigh in on how the Court might decide these issues, floating the idea that overruling or extending Hardison<\/em> could result in chaos in the workplace.[18]<\/a>\u00a0 Some argue that no one should have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to keep their job, and non-religious employees may have to sacrifice time with their families to pick up the slack for religious employees who cannot work certain shifts.\u00a0 While others point out that a new precedent could result in employees exploiting religion as a means of getting certain days \u2013 particularly weekends – off.\u00a0 This could result in more businesses opting to close on weekends.\u00a0 Only time will tell what a post-Groff<\/em> weekend will look like.<\/p>\n

    [1]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a)(1).<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> \u00a042 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e(j).<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> See, e.g.,<\/em> Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ.,<\/em> 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir. 1985), aff’d and remanded<\/em>, 479 U.S. 60, (1986)<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a> See, e.g.,<\/em> Groff v. DeJoy<\/em>, 35 F.4th 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2022), cert. granted<\/em>, No. 22-174, 2023 WL 178403 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2023); Goldmeier v. Allstate Ins. Co<\/em>., 337 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2003).<\/p>\n

    [5]<\/a> See<\/em> Webb v. City of Phila<\/em>., 562 F.3d 256, 259 (3d Cir. 2009).<\/p>\n

    [6]<\/a> See<\/em> Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook,<\/em> 479 U.S. 60, 69 (1986).<\/p>\n

    [7]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 68.<\/p>\n

    [8]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 67.<\/p>\n

    [9]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

    [10]<\/a> Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/em>, 432 U.S. 63, 77, (1977).<\/p>\n

    [11]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 73.<\/p>\n

    [12]<\/a> Id<\/em> at 84-5. (The lower court stated that reasonable accommodations available to TWA to accommodate Hardison included: (1) TWA could have allowed Hardison to work a four-day week; (2) TWA could have replaced Hardison on Saturday with an employee from another department; and (3) TWA could have paid premium wages to another employee willing to work on Saturday in place of Hardison. The SCOTUS responded to these suggestions by highlighting that \u201ceach of these alternatives would involve costs to TWA, either in the form of lost efficiency in other jobs or higher wages.\u201d\u00a0 The Court also noted that \u201cto require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion.\u201d)<\/p>\n

    [13]<\/a> Groff v. DeJoy<\/em>, 35 F.4th 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2022).<\/p>\n

    [14]<\/a> The Court first cited to Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook<\/em>, 479 U.S. 60 (1986) where the SCOTUS announced \u201cthat an accommodation is reasonable if it \u201celiminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices.\u201d\u00a0 However, the Court discussed how this definition is consistent with the word \u201caccommodate\u201d only. The Court reached the conclusion that \u201c[i]n the Title VII religious discrimination context, the word \u2018accommodate\u2019 requires the employer to offer an adjustment that allows the employee to fulfill the religious tenet but requires nothing more from the employer. The word \u2018reasonably\u2019 informs how an employer provides an accommodation that eliminates the conflict, but it does not obligate the employer to choose any particular reasonable accommodation, or grant an employee’s preferred accommodation.\u201d<\/p>\n

    [15]<\/a> Groff<\/em>, 35 F.4th<\/sup> at 175.<\/p>\n

    [16]<\/a> See<\/em> Gerald E. GROFF, Petitioner, v. Louis DEJOY, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Respondent., 2022 WL 3701768 (U.S.).<\/p>\n

    [17]<\/a> See<\/em> Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, 2023 WL 178403, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2023).<\/p>\n

    [18]<\/a> See<\/em> Ian Millhiser, A new Supreme Court case could turn every workplace into a religious battleground, VOX (Jan. 18, 2023 10:00 AM), https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/23559038\/supreme-court-groff-dejoy-religion-twa-hardison-workplace.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Employment litigators and Constitutional Law attorneys alike should pay close attention to the United States Supreme Court\u2019s calendar, as the Court recently agreed to take up a case that has the potential to change the way employers are required to accommodate employees…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":715,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[252,253],"tags":[254,256,255],"class_list":["post-714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-religious-accomodations","category-scotus","tag-employee-religious-beliefs","tag-religious-accomodations","tag-scotus"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}