Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employees to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs but only if doing so would not impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

This phrase was vague and, for over 40 years, lower courts have held that “undue hardship” meant anything more than a “de minimis cost.” As you can imagine, employers did not have to be very accommodating to their employees’ religious beliefs. To avoid having to provide a reasonable accommodation, employers merely had to determine that the accommodation would require it to expend effort or cost that was more than minimal. If the accommodation required more than minimal effort or cost, the employer’s subsequent refusal to provide the accommodation would not violate Title VII.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned the old rule regarding employers’ obligation to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs on its head: the new rule requires employers to put in more effort in providing what is deemed a “reasonable accommodation.” The nation’s highest court has held that the lower courts’ interpretation was completely wrong, rejected the old “de minimis” standard, and adopted a new one stating that “what an employer must show is that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” See Groff v. Dejoy, 600 U.S. ___(2023).

The Court’s new standard is troubling for two main reasons. First, the Court was unclear as to what constitutes “substantial increased costs.” There is no hard and fast definition as to what “substantial increased costs” means. Rather, this phrase will likely be challenged in the courts for years to come. Second, the Court stated that the new standard on whether an accommodation results in “substantial increased costs” is fact specific and will be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no bright-line rule for employers to follow.

The only thing that is clear is that employers must now do more than they have been doing to accommodate the employees’ religious beliefs. The tides have turned and employers are under new obligations, but what satisfies those obligations is vague and somewhat murky.

Given the potential for increased liability, employers should take all requests for accommodation seriously and, when in doubt, seek advice of one of our experienced employment attorneys.