What Supreme Court Groff v. DeJoy decision on religious accommodations means for employees

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for employees to obtain religious accommodations at their workplace.

The court used the case of a former postal worker to make clear that employers cannot avoid meeting religious requests simply by arguing that it would cost them more than a de minimis ‒ or trivial ‒ amount. Employers instead should accommodate religious employees’ requests unless doing so would result in “substantial increased costs" to the business, according to an opinion from Justice Samuel Alito.

The court's decision was unanimous. Gerald Groff, a Christian and former U.S. Postal Service worker who sued after his request for Sundays off was denied, will have his case sent back to lower courts.

The ruling has the potential to give religious employees more say over their schedules and dress codes.

“It’s a small number of employees affected who need this protection,” said Douglas Laycock, an authority on the law of religious liberty and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. But “for the employees who need this protection, this is very important.”

What did the decision change?

The court’s previous standard for granting religious accommodations meant employers could reject requests often, according to Laycock.

He pointed to a number of examples, including a 2006 case in which the court ruled it was reasonable for an auto-repair shop to move a worker to a lower bay after he refused to cut his hair because of his Rastafarian faith. In another case from 2017, a court found accommodating a Muslim employee’s request to wear a hijab as a customer service representative at an airport terminal would result in undue hardship to the employer.

Were those same cases to go to court today, Laycock said the employees would have a better chance of winning. 

Those were "cases where there seemed to be barely any burden on the employer,” he said. “(Thursday’s decision) may not change the result in every case, but it’s going to change the result in a lot of cases.”

What was the reaction to the ruling?

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket – a nonprofit public interest law firm that has represented religious clients at the Supreme Court – called Thursday's decision “very significant.”

Now, “the employer can't just say, well, it'll cost me a little more money to have somebody work overtime. Or the other employees won't like that religious exemption, so I'm going to not give it to you,” Rienzi said. “The court made clear that the employer is supposed to accommodate most of the time.”

'Wolf in sheep's clothing'? How a USPS worker's fight over Sunday shifts could change your workplace.

A statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser said “religious accommodations that don’t burden or harm others, like wearing a hijab or having a beard, or praying privately, are exactly what the law was designed to permit.”

As for Groff's case, Laser argued that Groff could lose the case because his refusal to work 24 Sunday shifts created "huge burdens" for his coworkers.

“What we're defending is the idea that religious freedom should not be the right to force your coworkers to bear the cost of your religious practices in a way that harms them,” Laser told Paste BN.