Courts Develop Hardship Test for Worker Religious Accommodations

Recent trends in employment litigation and government agency enforcement have emphasized that courts and agencies expect employers to reasonably accommodate employees. In addition to accommodations for disabilities, pregnancy, and time off in other exigent circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision Groff v. DeJoy strengthened the standard protecting religiously observant workers, holding that employers cannot refuse an employee request for religious accommodation unless the employer can prove a substantial hardship would result to its business.

Khorri Atkinson of Bloomberg Law spoke with Jay A. Zweig about how, following the Groff Decision, courts have declined to dismiss and even reinstated previously dismissed lawsuits asserting that an employer improperly refused a request for a religious accommodation. These courts have allowed employees’ cases to proceed and to require that employers prove that an accommodation would be a substantial hardship, and just a minimal cost or inconvenience to the employer. Although this portends more religious discrimination lawsuits proceeding to jury trials due to the fact-intensive inquiries as to what is an undue hardship, employers can mitigate their risk based on their experiences with extending other accommodations. Jay offered practical guidance for minimizing risk and how employers should approach religious accommodation requests.

Jay is a member of the firm's Labor and Employment Group.

Read the full article here. (Subscription may be required.)