Quiz #100 Are there "off limits" points of inquiry for an "undue hardship" determination?

In Religion Law Quiz #99 we learned “that ‘undue hardship’ in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test.”  Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023).  But when a court is making this determination, are there certain points that are “off-limits” to the court’s determination?  If so, what are they? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  Yes.  A hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.”  Here is what the Supreme Court specifically said:

 

On this point, the Solicitor General took pains to clarify that some evidence that occasionally is used to show “impacts” on coworkers is “off the table” for consideration. Id., at 102. Specifically, a coworker's dislike of “religious practice and expression in the workplace” or “the mere fact [of] an accommodation” is not “cognizable to factor into the undue hardship inquiry.” Id., at 89–90. To the extent that this was not previously clear, we agree. An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself. See id., at 89 (argument of Solicitor General) (such an approach would be “giving effect to religious hostility”); contra, EEOC v. Sambo's of Georgia, Inc., 530 F.Supp. 86, 89 (ND Ga. 1981) (considering as hardship “[a]dverse customer reaction” from “a simple aversion to, or discomfort in dealing with, bearded people”).

Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023) (emphasis added).

 

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

 

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

 

 

This episode of the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding, is milestone number 100 in the Religion Law Quiz series. The podcast continues the discussion on the monumental Groff v. DeJoy case, focusing on the concept of 'undue hardship' as stipulated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Michael poses a question for listeners to ponder: When determining what constitutes 'undue hardship' in the context of an employer's religious accommodations, are there factors that courts should not consider? As per the Supreme Court's ruling, any hardship attributed to employee animosity towards a particular religion, religion in general, or the notion of religious accommodation cannot be deemed 'undue'.

The episode offers a clearer understanding of the balance required between maintaining employees' religious freedoms and the operational needs of a business. Michael explains this complex issue with an imaginary scenario in which a majority of employees harbor resentment towards a particular religion or religious practice. The Supreme Court starkly emphasizes that such employee negativity cannot justify a refusal for religious accommodation.

The podcast navigates through the finer points of religion law and religious freedom with the aim of educating listeners. The discussion ends with the anticipation of the final episode on Groff v. DeJoy in the next Religion Law Quiz. The episode asserts that protecting religious freedoms in the workspa

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where you learn about
religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through a short question-and-answer format.
I'm your host, Michael Fielding.
Let's see how you do on today's quiz.
Welcome to Religion Law Quiz number 100, Numero Cien, a major milestone in Religion

(00:27):
Religion Law Quiz Podcast History.
All right. Woo-hoo!
I don't know. Maybe I should—I don't even have a little gazoo or anything to
blow, but all right. We can just cheer in the background.
All right. Let's just dive into today's quiz. I don't really have any special
celebration for reaching quiz number 100.
We're actually just going to continue on with our discussion of Groff v.

(00:51):
DeJoy. All right. So as you will recall in religion law quiz number 99,
we learned that undue hardship in Title VII means what it says,
and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context
of an employer's business in the common sense manner that it would use in applying such a test.

(01:14):
So, the question here is, but when a court is making this determination,
are there certain points that are off limits to the court's determination?
And if so, what are they?
So, let's pause and rephrase that question.
So as you know, Title VII comes from the Civil Rights Act, which essentially says, hey,

(01:37):
if you are an employer, you need to make religious accommodations for your employees
unless it would create an undue burden for you as the employer. That's it in a nutshell.
And then we know that when the court is trying to determine what constitutes
an undue hardship, it's supposed to use the common sense approach.
But the question is, when the court is doing that, are there some points that

(02:04):
are off limits, so to speak, to the court's determination?
And if there are what I'll call off-limits questions, what are they or off-limit points?
What do you think? Are there some
things that a court should not or cannot consider? And the answer is yes.
And hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion,

(02:26):
to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice
cannot be considered undue.
Now, here is what the Supreme Court said in its 2023 Groff v.
DeJoy decision. It's a little bit of a long quote, and I'll apologize up front
for hitting you with a long quote.

(02:48):
But then about in the middle of the paragraph, there's a really important sentence,
and I'll emphasize it when we get to it.
Here's what the Supreme Court said, and again, I'll have the citation in the show notes.
So here's the quote. Quote, on this point, the Solicitor General took pains
to clarify that some evidence that occasionally is used to show impacts on co-workers

(03:11):
is off the table for consideration.
Specifically, a co-worker dislike of religious practice and expression in the
workplace or the mere fact of an accommodation is not cognizable to factor into
the undue hardship inquiry
to the extent this was not previously clear,

(03:31):
we agree. Now, and I'm.
Mike Filling's saying, all right, here's the big emphasis from the Supreme Court,
continuing with the quote,
an employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the
hardship is undue and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity

(03:53):
to a particular religion,
to a religion in general, or to religion in general, or to the very notion of
accommodating religious practice cannot be considered undue.
If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided
a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself.

(04:18):
Close quote. So what are the key takeaways here for this quiz?
Well, I think it's pretty obvious That when the Supreme Court is saying,
hey, if an employer wants to not provide an accommodation, then the employer
has to show that it would be an undue burden.

(04:40):
And then the question is, all right, so are there some points that the employer
can't point to and say that's an undue burden for me? and the Supreme Court is saying yes.
And I'll give you an extreme example. I'm just making this up on the fly.
That's how we do things here on the Religion Law Quiz. We are dynamic.

(05:02):
Anyway, in this hypothetical, let's assume that you have a thousand employees.
And let's assume that 90% of the employees just have real animus against religion
or against a particular faith.
And then you have maybe a few employees that are either religious or maybe they

(05:27):
are of a particular faith.
And they asked for a religious accommodation.
And the employer would get grumblings from, you know, 90% of the workforce.
And, you know, you could just hear the employees grumbling. Why do we have to
do that? Blah, blah, blah. This is just religion.
Blah, blah, blah. This is just this faith, right? And they could be super mad about it,

(05:51):
super mad that they're being asked to adjust their work schedule so that it
could accommodate someone else who wants to keep their job and practice their faith too.
And what the Supreme Court is saying is that the employer cannot just point
to other employees and say,
hey, all my employees are grumbling about making this accommodation because

(06:16):
they don't like religion or they don't like this particular religious faith.
What the Supreme Court is saying, you can't do that.
You can't say, hey, that this is going to be an undue hardship for the employer
because a bunch of the employees are going to be upset that we're making the
accommodation because they have this animus against this particular religion

(06:37):
or against religion generally. Okay.
And the Supreme Court is saying is that if that was the situation,
then Title VII would be at war with itself.
So, interesting concept, interesting point here for consideration.
That does it for quiz number 100. On quiz number 101, that's going to be actually
our last quiz talking about Groff v.

(06:59):
DeJoy. Hope you can listen to it.
Thank you for listening to today's episode. Remember, religion law quizzes are
for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.
If you have found this episode to be helpful, please share it and leave a review.
Until we meet again, keep being an influence for good.

(07:22):
Music.