Groff v. DeJoy Raised the Bar for Denying Religious Accommodation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate an employee's religious practices unless doing so would create an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." For decades, federal courts read that standard loosely. A single sentence from a 1977 Supreme Court opinion had defined "undue hardship" as any cost or effort beyond "de minimis" – a low bar that favored employers.

That changed in 2023. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the de minimis standard. Justice Alito wrote that a mere showing of more-than-trivial cost is not enough. Instead, an employer must prove the accommodation would impose a "substantial" burden in the overall context of its business.

What Groff actually requires

The ruling directs lower courts to weigh "all relevant factors in the case at hand," including the specific accommodation requested and its practical impact given the employer's "nature, size, and operating cost." There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Context matters.

Two guideposts stand out. First, co-worker resentment or morale concerns are irrelevant unless they translate into a real strain on the business. The court put it bluntly: evidence about co-worker attitudes is "off the table for consideration" unless it shows a substantial operational impact.

Second, the analysis must be proactive. Employers cannot simply say no. They must consider alternative accommodations, even ones the employee never proposed.

How lower courts have applied the new standard