Legislative Updates

Religious Accommodations in the Workplace: What Staffing Companies Need to Know

By Diane Geller

For staffing companies managing diverse workforces, few compliance challenges are as nuanced -- or as consequential -- as a reasonable accommodation request relating to an employee's religion. A single misstep regarding, for example, a change to a job's requirements or work schedule can expose both the staffing firm and its client to costly litigation, damage key relationships, erode the trust that is essential to talent retention and result in negative public relations for the companies. Yet many employers in the staffing industry are still operating under an outdated understanding of their legal obligations.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2281, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023) that significantly changed the standard employers must meet when evaluating religious accommodation requests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ruling replaced a decades-old standard that had made it relatively easy to deny such requests. Staffing professionals who have not yet updated their policies and training should take note: the legal landscape has shifted, and the margin for error is now significantly narrower.

The Prior Standard: Trans World Airlines v. Hardison

Until the Groff decision, employers could claim that a religious accommodation caused an undue hardship if the cost or effort required would be more than de minimis. This framework originated from the Supreme Court's 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, in which the Court held that requiring an employer "to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give" an employee "Saturdays off is an undue hardship." The de minimis standard was a relatively low threshold, making it easier for employers to deny religious accommodation requests.

The New Standard: Groff v. DeJoy

Nearly fifty years later, a unanimous Supreme Court revisited the religious accommodation obligation in Groff v. DeJoy. In that case, Gerald Groff sued under Title VII, asserting that the United States Postal Service should have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice by granting him Sundays off from work.

The Court distinguished the two cases and cited a footnote in the Hardison decision that suggested an accommodation is not required only when it entails "substantial costs or expenditures"--rather than the lower de minimis standard that had been applied since that ruling. While rejecting the argument that the standard should mirror the disability discrimination framework under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Court articulated a new standard: employers must show that providing a religious accommodation "would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."

Additionally, the Court emphasized that courts should "take into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer."  600 U.S. 447, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2281, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023)

Implications for Employers

This newly articulated standard places a heavier burden on employers when reviewing religious accommodation requests. Employers should train employees who are involved in considering religious accommodation requests to carefully review each request, engage in the interactive process with the employee, consider alternatives and analyze potential costs before making decisions.

Recommended Steps for Addressing Religious Accommodation Requests

·         Review each request individually on its own merits. Avoid making assumptions about religious beliefs or practices, and assess each situation based on its specific facts and circumstances.

·         Engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee. Discuss the request with the employee to identify reasonable accommodations that address the employee's religious needs while maintaining operational efficiency.

·         Understand the undue hardship standard. Recognize that the employer now bears the burden of demonstrating that accommodating a request would cause significant difficulty or expense--not merely a de minimis cost.

·         Explore alternative accommodations. Consider whether there are feasible alternative accommodations that would be effective for the employee without imposing substantial increased costs on the business.

·         Consult with employment counsel. Contact your employment attorney to help navigate the complexities of accommodating religious beliefs in the workplace and to stay informed about recent legal developments.

Diane J. Geller is a partner in the Labor & Employment Department at Fox Rothschild. She focuses her practice on representing clients in the staffing industry and helps clients stay compliant with the ever-changing federal and state regulations governing the workplace, as well as the daily challenges facing business owners. She can be reached at 561-804-4469 or dgeller@foxrothschild.com.

This article is intended for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with knowledgeable legal counsel to determine how applicable laws apply to their own specific facts and situations.