Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Legally Decline Employees’ Religious Accommodation Requests

Client Alert
June 29, 2023

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) employers must show, in order to decline religious accommodations, that the burden of granting religious accommodations to employees will result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business, thus amending the prior, simple standard of a “de minimis” undue hardship.

Title VII requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. Prior to this recent decision, in interpreting what undue hardship means, courts have repeatedly applied a “de minimis cost” standard. Under that standard, employers merely needed to demonstrate that honoring an employee’s religious accommodation would result in essentially any additional cost or hardship. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the de minimis cost standard could be satisfied in nearly any circumstance. The Supreme Court is now holding that employers must show an excessive or unjustifiable burden to legally decline religious accommodations.  

In navigating this tough new standard, it’s imperative for employers to understand the risks of declining or failing to honor employees’ religious accommodation requests. To demonstrate what does not count as “substantial increased costs” for employers, the Supreme Court explained that no undue hardship is imposed on employers by temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, or administrative costs. Consequently, employers who plan to deny an employee’s religious accommodation request must be prepared to meet the tough burden of proving the business would face substantial increased costs due to such accommodations.

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that employers may not reject a religious accommodation due to hardship attributed to animosity towards a particular religion. Further, Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice, and not merely show that it assessed the “reasonableness” of a possible accommodation.

In all, employers must carefully assess and examine religious accommodation requests and note that substantial increased costs must be present to legally decline religious accommodations under Title VII. This analysis should be conducted alongside the employer’s employment attorney.

Should you have any questions concerning religious accommodation requests, please contact BMD Labor & Employment Partner and Co-Chair of its Labor & Employment Division, Bryan Meek, at bmeek@bmdllc.com. Thanks to Mercedes Sieg for her research and efforts with this Client Alert.

Labor and Employment LawU.S. Supreme Courtreligious exemptionsreligious accommodations
Client Alert

RNs and APRNs Take Note: Ohio Board of Nursing Mandates a New CE Reporting Period

April 29, 2026Ohio’s Board of Nursing has updated the continuing education reporting period for RNs and APRNs. Beginning March 26, 2026, CE credits must be completed between July 1 and June 30 of odd-numbered years, replacing the previous November to October timeframe.Client Alert

Ohio Med Spas: Peptide Do's and Do Not's

April 29, 2026Recent guidance from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy outlines key compliance requirements for med spas using peptides. While some peptide drugs are FDA approved, others are not or cannot be compounded. Med spa operators should ensure they source medications from licensed suppliers, avoid non-approved or “research use only” products, and follow all compounding and storage regulations to maintain compliance and avoid enforcement actions.Client Alert

Substance Use Disorder Providers: 42 CFR Part 2 Now Enforceable

April 15, 2026Updates to 42 CFR Part 2 are now enforceable, bringing significant changes to how substance use disorder (SUD) records are handled. The Final Rule aligns Part 2 more closely with HIPAA, introduces updated penalties, allows a single patient consent for treatment, payment, and operations, and adds new requirements for Notices of Privacy Practices. It also creates a formal definition of SUD counseling notes and imposes strict consent requirements for their use and disclosure. Providers should review and update policies to ensure compliance.Client Alert

AAA Introduces AI-Assisted Arbitrator for Certain Disputes

April 7, 2026The American Arbitration Association has introduced an AI-assisted arbitration platform designed to streamline certain document-based disputes. While a human arbitrator still makes the final decision, the technology can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and accelerate case resolution. Companies should weigh these benefits against considerations such as transparency, risk, and contractual requirements before adopting AI-assisted arbitration.Client Alert

Quiet Hours Texts and TCPA Claims: Consent Remains King as Courts Divide on Text Messages

March 31, 2026Businesses face increasing TCPA lawsuits over off-hours marketing texts, but recent court decisions highlight strong defenses. Clear consumer consent and updated terms and conditions can defeat many claims, while a growing number of courts are finding that text messages are not “telephone calls” under the statute. Proactive compliance measures, including clickwrap agreements and forum-selection clauses, are critical to reducing risk.
Older posts