Religion and Work: Navigating the Terrain of Religious Accommodations Post-Groff v. DeJoy

Imagine walking into work worried that your religious practices might make you a target of discrimination or jeopardize your job. A third of American employees are concerned about some form of religious bias at work, and a little over a third report that they have seen or experienced religious discrimination at work. Meanwhile, America has seen an alarming rise in antisemitism, where 24 percent of Americans hold some prejudice against Jewish people.

Younger generations, including Gen Z and millennials, agree with more anti-Jewish tropes than their older generation counterparts. With increasing rates of antisemitism, especially among working-age individuals, employers must recognize the shifts in America’s broader and more inclusive religious landscape and actively accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs and practices.

Under Title VII, employers are prohibited from making employment decisions based on religion. Employers also have a duty to accommodate religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the business. The interpretation of undue hardship has been the crux of evolving legal standards, highlighted by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) and Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).

For decades, Hardison was the standard for religious accommodations and undue hardship. The Supreme Court found that to impose “more than a de minimis” cost on the employer would constitute undue hardship. Hardison’s interpretation effectively lowered the bar for what constituted undue hardship, allowing employers broad discretion to deny accommodations. Hardison’s de minimis interpretation stood until the 2023 Groff decision, which redefined “undue hardship.”

The Court rejected the Hardison standard, ruling that “undue hardship” must mean a “substantial increased cost” to the employer. This higher threshold requires businesses to make more meaningful efforts to accommodate religious practices. This is a major win for Jewish employees: requests to leave early for the Sabbath or to observe holidays now have a stronger legal foundation.

Accommodating Religious Practices at Work Without Imposing Undue Hardship on the Business

Under guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII, courts use a “totality of the circumstances” approach to religious accommodation cases. The Groff decision underscores the necessity of a thorough examination of the operational impact of religious accommodations, noting that the effects on coworkers’ sentiments or the mere fact of accommodation cannot inherently constitute undue hardship, particularly emphasizing that any hardship stemming from coworker animosity toward religious practices or accommodations does not meet the criteria for undue hardship.

The Groff ruling emphasizes a context-specific inquiry, requiring lower courts to consider the unique factors of each case, including the accommodations requested and their impact on the employer’s business, considering its size and operational costs. Employers do not have to accommodate where the accommodation would result in a contravention of collective bargaining agreements or seniority arrangements. Under Groff’s context-specific inquiry, a request to not work on religious holidays could be granted in one circumstance but not another.

Workplace Accommodations Checklist and Common Examples

Requests for religious accommodations generally fall into four categories: (1) dress code waivers, (2) schedule changes to accommodate an employee’s religious holidays, (3) religious expression at work, and (4) conflicts with job responsibilities. Drawing on the principles outlined in Title VII, the EEOC guidelines, and analogous reasoning from Americans with Disabilities Act standards, the following checklist identifies key criteria for evaluating religious accommodation requests, balancing respect for employee rights with the need to avoid undue hardship for employers.

“Substantial Increased Costs” Checklist: What Are the Costs to the Company?

1. Will the accommodation substantially increase costs relative to the business’s size, financial resources, nature, and structure? For example, a large corporation with ample financial resources may be better equipped to absorb the costs of a requested modification—such as hiring additional staff—than a small business with tighter profit margins.
2. Does the accommodation burden coworkers disproportionately or require them to take on significantly more work? If so, facilitate a dialogue with those coworkers to address concerns and consider viable solutions. Accommodations that shift workload to other employees can create resentment or burnout; for instance, if a schedule adjustment requires a coworker to cover undesirable shifts consistently, the employer should explore solutions such as rotating coverage among multiple employees to minimize the impact.
3. Does the accommodation conflict with terms outlined in a collective bargaining agreement? If so, consider alternative accommodations that respect the agreement.
4. Does the accommodation disrupt an established seniority system? If so, are accommodations available that would not interfere with the system?
5. Does the accommodation infringe safety, security, or other legal requirements?
6. Does the accommodation require significant changes to the essential functions of the job or the business?

Common Examples

Dress Codes

Imagine Rachel, an orthodox Jew whose religious dress conflicts with the company’s uniform policy for customer-facing roles. The company offers her a back-office position where she can dress as she chooses, but this move reduces her customer interaction, lowers her salary, and impacts her job satisfaction. While the company’s efforts might, in the view of some, demonstrate sensitivity, the accommodation is inadequate because it adversely affects Rachel’s career trajectory and job fulfillment.

Although the company avoided a substantial increase in cost, it failed to explore alternatives that might have allowed Rachel to maintain her role. In this instance, the accommodation might have inadvertently placed a disproportionate burden on Rachel, highlighting the importance of engaging in a more thorough dialogue to find mutually beneficial solutions. It also may run afoul of prohibitions on segregation. Therefore, a better solution might include exploring a minor adjustment to the uniform policy that would allow Rachel to retain her current role without creating undue hardship for the company.

Work Schedules

Now consider Esther, who recently started her job and thus ranks low in seniority. Esther asks for time off to observe Jewish holidays. Granting her request would mean bypassing more senior employees and disrupting the seniority system. According to Groff, disrupting a seniority system can constitute an undue hardship. Yet, this does not mean her request should be dismissed outright. The checklist emphasizes the importance of maintaining established seniority systems while seeking alternative accommodations.

Engaging in an open dialogue to explore all options, such as swapping shifts with willing coworkers and providing a master schedule to help identify who would be available to work those hours, could identify a solution that respects Esther’s religious needs and the seniority system. The Groff decision suggested that “infrequent or temporary payment of premium wages for a substitute” are costs that would not reach the level of undue hardship.

Religious Conflict

Sarah, a Jewish employee, notices that a coworker has displayed a calendar in his workspace featuring historical wartime images. While the calendar purports to showcase military history, a few months include images of Adolf Hitler and Nazi memorabilia, which Sarah finds deeply offensive. She requests the calendar be immediately removed. In this case, the first item on the checklist is straightforward: removing the calendar does not substantially increase costs for the company, but the employer should still engage in a dialogue. The employer must consider the impact on Sarah’s well-being and potential workplace disruptions versus the coworker’s freedom of expression.

The employer should approach the coworker to explain the calendar’s impact, request its removal, and emphasize the importance of maintaining a respectful and inclusive workplace for all employees. Unlike expressions of identity, such as religious symbols, the calendar’s imagery conveys a universally recognized message of hate and exclusion, leaving little room for alternative interpretations.

However, consider Miriam, a Jewish employee who wears a Star of David necklace and an Israeli flag pin, along with a necklace that reads “Bring Them Home” in reference to hostages held by Hamas. A coworker, deeply affected by the Israel-Gaza conflict and holding opposing views, expresses discomfort, claiming that Miriam’s visible symbols make the workplace feel politically charged. The employer affirms Miriam’s right to wear her symbols and, to maintain workplace harmony, facilitates private discussions with involved employees and issues a company-wide reminder on respectful expression and inclusive conduct.

While this approach may involve increased costs related to time spent in dialogue and sensitivity training, it helps mitigate larger risks of discrimination claims, fosters employee morale, and reinforces a culture of respect—all well worth the cost for the employer while benefiting all employees. Miriam’s symbols, in contrast to Nazi memorabilia, reflect her identity and beliefs, which do not inherently communicate hostility or exclusion but instead represent protected forms of individual expression.

Job Responsibility Conflict

The final example is Mark, a Jewish employee who faces challenges as a quality control supervisor for a food manufacturing company. His role requires tasting products, some of which contain non-kosher ingredients, conflicting with his religious dietary restrictions. Mark requests an accommodation allowing him to oversee quality checks without tasting non-kosher products. He suggests alternatives such as using smell and visual inspections or designating a colleague to perform taste tests.

Following the checklist, the company should carefully analyze whether the proposed accommodation significantly changes the job’s essential functions. After evaluating the operational impact of Mark’s proposal, the company determined that having a colleague take over Mark’s job functions would substantially increase costs. Before considering termination, the company should assess whether reassignment to a comparable position with similar rank and pay is feasible. Only if no such positions are available or suitable, and after exhausting all reasonable accommodation options, should the company explore other measures, including potential separation.

Conclusion

For employees, the Groff decision significantly enhances their rights and protections. It affirms the value and importance of religious expression in the workplace, offering a stronger shield against discrimination and ensuring their beliefs are accorded meaningful consideration.

These decisions signal a move toward a more inclusive and respectful workplace culture. Employers are encouraged to adopt policies and practices that recognize the diverse religious backgrounds of their workforce, promoting a sense of belonging and respect among all employees. This shift better aligns with Title VII and contributes to a more harmonious and productive work environment where diversity can be celebrated and all employees feel valued and supported in their religious practices and beliefs.

Please note: The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates, the Board of Governors, the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice or the Human Rights Editorial Board of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. They are the views of the individual authors themselves in their personal capacities.