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

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.Client Alert

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 15, 2024The Ohio Board of Pharmacy released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past month that will significantly impact pharmacy operations. Topics range from updates to the Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs license to mobile clinics to mandatory rest breaks for pharmacists of outpatient pharmacies. A summary of the proposed changes is below, along with instructions for commenting on the rules. Your BMD healthcare attorney can help write comment letters and submit the comments on your behalf as well.Client Alert

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Guidance Issued by the Department of Labor

January 10, 2024On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its long-awaited final rule — effective March 11, 2024 — revising its prior interpretation of worker classifications under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new final rule rescinds the standard previously established in 2021, in turn, shifting the analysis of whether a worker is an employee (versus an independent contractor) of a business from a more streamlined “economic reality” test to a more complex “totality of the circumstances” standard.Client Alert

Increased Medicaid Rates to Take Effect This Month for Ohio Providers

January 5, 2024As required by House Bill 33, Ohio’s 2024-2025 operating budget bill, reimbursement rates paid by the Ohio Department of Medicaid will increase for a wide range of providers starting on January 1, 2024.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Update

December 27, 2023The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), with an effective date of January 1, 2024, is set to impose strict reporting guidelines on business owners throughout the country. The following provides a brief update on two aspects of the CTA ahead of its effectiveness next week.
Older posts
Newer posts