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

Invisible Algorithms: The Hidden Role of Artificial Intelligence in USCIS Immigration Processing

February 10, 2026The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools are now integrated into numerous operational functions within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These tools are described as mechanisms to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs, and assist officers in managing an unprecedented volume of applications. DHS emphasizes that human adjudicators retain decision-making authority and that AI systems do not independently grant or deny immigration benefits. Find out how AI affects the U.S. immigration process.Client Alert

OAAPN | Year In Review: 2026 Ohio Board of Nursing and Ohio Law Rules

February 9, 2026Find out key changes to Ohio law and the Ohio Board of Nursing rules that have directly impacted APRN practice over the past year, including Psychiatric Inpatient Documents, Intimate Examinations, Signature Authority, Duties Related to Fetal Death, Retail IV Therapy Clinics, Release from Permanent Restrictions, Disciplinary Action, Course on Drugs and Prescriptive Authority, Overdose Reversal Drugs, Office Based Opioid Treatment, Withdrawal Management for Substance Use Disorder, Safe Haven Program, and more.Client Alert

Ohio House Bill 537: Proposed Regulations for Midwives and Birthing Centers

January 28, 2026House Bill 537, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework for certified nurse-midwives, certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives. The legislation would clarify scope of practice, establish licensure standards, and impose new requirements for freestanding birthing centers and home births. Healthcare providers and facilities should be aware of the proposed changes and their potential operational impact.Client Alert

Proposed Health Information Privacy Reform Act Expands Protections Beyond HIPAA

January 26, 2026The Health Information Privacy Reform Act (HIPRA) seeks to extend privacy protections to health data not covered under HIPAA, including data collected by apps and wearables. HIPRA introduces broader definitions of protected health information, strengthens privacy and security requirements, establishes patient notification rights, and sets national de-identification standards. Companies processing health data should monitor developments to ensure compliance.Client Alert

Medicare Updates on Skin Substitutes: LCDs Withdrawn, Payment Changes Take Effect

January 23, 2026Medicare’s planned Final Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for skin substitutes were withdrawn in late December 2025, meaning previous coverage rules remain in effect. The 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule introduces a single payment rate of approximately $127.14 for these products. Providers should review implications for diabetic foot and venous leg ulcer treatments.
Older posts
Newer posts