Brock Associate Professor in Professional Responsibility Nathan S. Chapman provided three important takeaways from the U.S. Supreme Court's recently released decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which expanded the rights of employees against religious discrimination in the workplace.
What does the ruling in Groff v. DeJoy mean?
Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s request for a religious accommodation unless it would cause an “undue burden” to the employer’s business. In Groff, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer must show that an “undue burden” is a “substantial cost.
What are three key takeaways from today’s Groff v. DeJoy ruling?
There are three important implications from today’s decision:
- Employers will have to do more to accommodate employees’ religious exercise.
- More employees’ religious exercise will be accommodated in the workplace.
- Legislative religious accommodations like Title VII do not violate the Establishment Clause even when they impose something less than a “substantial cost” on third parties (in the case of Groff v. DeJoy, businesses).
Additional background on today’s ruling
In a prior case, TWA v. Hardison (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court had appeared to hold that an employee need only show that the cost is more than de minimis, which means trifling. Lower courts have accordingly applied the “more than de minimis” standard for about 50 years. In Groff, the Supreme Court agreed with both the plaintiff and the Solicitor General for the United States that Hardison should be read to require an employer to show a “substantial cost” to the business.
Chapman, who holds the Brock Associate Professorship at the University of Georgia School of Law, can be reached for further commentary at nsc@uga.edu.