DeJoyful Noise: Reimagining Title VII Religious Accommodations in the Wake of Groff v. DeJoy

Authors

Mikko Biana

Abstract

The prominence of religion in everyday life has dwindled in recent decades. The number of Americans who attend weekly religious services continues to decline, and wide swaths of the population now profess irreligion altogether. Despite this trend, constitutional mandates such as the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses remind society that throughout history and into the present day, the relationship between religion and state has been and always will be ripe for discussion. The 2023 Supreme Court decision Groff v. DeJoy exemplifies this characterization. Prior to Groff, the Court primarily relied on a 1977 case, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, for the proposition that under Title VII, employers need not provide their employees with religious accommodations in the workplace if doing so would cause “undue hardship.” Under Hardison, any cost to an employer that was more than “de minimis” would impose an “undue hardship.” While several disgruntled plaintiffs challenged this unpopular interpretation of Title VII, none succeeded at appearing before the highest court until Gerald Groff, a postal worker for USPS, alleged that his employer could have accommodated his religious practices without taking on “undue hardship.” Disavowing decades of precedent, the Court announced in Groff that employers must now prove that the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” in order to demonstrate “undue hardship.” On the one hand, this new standard likely helps religious minorities, whose requests for religious accommodations are routinely denied under the “de minimis” standard, better access these accommodations. Conversely, the “substantial increased costs” standard may allow powerful religious groups to construct workplaces in their image by proselytizing employees, misgendering coworkers, or praying openly to the discomfort of others. Further, Groff’s relationship with the Establishment Clause, in light of the Court’s recent decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, remains unsettled. This Note therefore calls for the EEOC to issue updated regulations to provide guidance for employers and to reflect the Court’s decision in Groff. This Note also advocates for the creation of a dedicated task force—the Task Force for Fair Religious Practices—to combat religious discrimination, both for people seeking accommodations and for those who may be negatively impacted by those aiming to take advantage of the new standard.

Recommended Citation

Mikko Biana, DeJoyful Noise: Reimagining Title VII Religious Accommodations in the Wake of Groff v. DeJoy, 90 Brook. L. Rev. 263 (2024).
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol90/iss1/6