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

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.


LGBTQIA+ Patients and Discrimination in Healthcare

In early April, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a study outlining the challenges that LGBT adults face in the United States related to healthcare. According to the study, LGBT patients are “twice as likely as non-LGBT adults to report negative experiences while receiving health care in the last three years, including being treated unfairly or with disrespect (33% v. 15%) or having at least one of several other negative experiences with a provider (61% v. 31%), including a provider assuming something about them without asking, suggesting they were personally to blame for a health problem, ignoring a direct request or question, or refusing to prescribe needed pain medication.”

Ohio Recovery Housing Overhaul: New Standards and Certification Requirements Reshape Sober Living Spaces

Ensuring Fair Access: SB 269 Protects Affordable Medication for Low-Income Patients

SB 269, introduced on December 19, 2023, will ensure that 340B covered entities, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White Clinics, disproportionate share hospitals, and Title X clinics, can acquire 340B drugs without facing undue restrictions or discriminatory practices from drug manufacturers and distributors. This protection is crucial for 340B covered entities to continue to provide affordable medications and comprehensive services to low-income patients.

Unveiling Ohio's Pharmacy Board Updates for Distributors, Mobile Clinics, and Controlled Substances

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy will hold a public hearing on May 28, 2024, to discuss several proposed changes and additions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). These changes pertain to terminal distributors of dangerous drugs (TDDDs), mobile clinics or medication units, and the classification of controlled substances.

House Bill 249: Key Updates to Involuntary Hospitalization Law for Mental Health Providers

House Bill 249 (HB 249) proposes changes to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Sections 5122.01 and 5122.10 to expand the conditions under which a person with a mental illness can be involuntarily hospitalized.