Beyond de minimis: Navigating religious accommodation after Groff v. DeJoy

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Based on one sentence from a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, federal courts previously interpreted “undue hardship” to mean any effort or cost that is more than “de minimis,” a relatively employer-friendly standard. That standard changed in 2023, however, with Groff v. DeJoy, where Justice Alito delivered the court’s unanimous opinion and clarified “what Title VII requires” when evaluating a religious accommodation request.

Groff opinion

The Groff opinion raised the bar for employers seeking to deny a religious accommodation. It held that a “de minimis” cost is not enough to establish undue hardship under Title VII. Instead, undue hardship exists when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. 

What does this mean for employers navigating religious accommodation requests? It means they must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs to the operation of their business. When analyzing the potential costs, Groff directs lower courts to consider “all relevant factors in the case at hand,” including the accommodation requested and its practical impact in light of the employer’s “nature, size, and operating cost.” In short, context matters—there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to what constitutes substantial increased costs.