Quiz #97 What was the main holding of Groff v DeJoy?

In June 2023 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Groff v. DeJoy ruling on religious accommodations under Title VII.  In a nutshell, what was the main holding of the Groff decision? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  Here’s how the Supreme Court answers that question in the syllabus:

 

Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Pp. 2287 – 2297.

 

Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2281 (2023).

 

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

 

 

Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast, a platform where you learn about religious freedom and other religion law-related topics in a short, engaging Q&A format. In this episode, our host, Michael Fielding, breaks down the revolutionary Supreme Court Decision - Groff v. DeJoy. This case defined the parameters of how religious accommodations should be handled under Title VII.

Religion Law Quiz number 97 unravels a key legal precedent - the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. Listen as Michael Fielding intricately dissects the facts of the case involving an evangelical Christian working for the Postal Service who was unwilling to work on Sundays. Despite the case being ruled against the employee in both the district court and the appellate court level, things took a turn in the Supreme Court.

A particularly intriguing discussion ensues as we discuss the big reveal - the Supreme Court’s ruling drawn from the court's syllabus. It held that if an employer denies a religious accommodation, they must demonstrate that granting such an accommodation would lead to substantially increased costs related to the conduct of their particular business. This core discussion offers listeners rich insight into the nuances of handling requests for religious accommodations within the workforce.

Bringing the law to life, the episode draws parallels with everyday situations, such as the host's daughter managing her work schedule alongside her Sunday church commitments. The anecdote underscores how religious accommodations can be managed without significant disruption or cost to businesses, casting a new, practical light on the Supreme Court ruling.

In conclusion, this episode invites listeners to further expand their understanding of the complex interplay between religion, law, and business. Catch us on Quiz number 98, where our exploration of Graff v. DeJoy continues.

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 97.

(00:25):
Today's quiz is going to be on the shorter side.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Groff v.
DeJoy ruling on religious accommodations under Title VII.
Now, in a nutshell, what was the main holding of the Groff decision?

(00:45):
What do you think? Now, if you recall, in quizzes 95 and 96,
we've been talking about the Groff v.
DeJoy decision that dealt with Title VII and reasonable accommodations for that
an employer needs to make for an employee.
And in the Groff v. DeJoy decision, this was a situation where you had this
evangelical Christian who worked for the Postal Service, and the Postal Service

(01:09):
wanted him to work on Sundays.
I think it was to deliver Amazon packages because the Postal Service has a contract
with Amazon, and the employee didn't want to do it. But Postal Service was, hey, tough luck.
You know, you need to work. And so it gets appealed.
Courts rule against the employee, both at the district court and the appeal.

(01:32):
Appellate court level at the Third Circuit goes up to the Supreme Court.
And what does the Supreme Court hold?
Well, here is how the Supreme Court ruled. And this is from the syllabus from the Supreme Court.
I'll have the citation and the show notes. the court held
that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to

(01:53):
show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial
increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
Close quote. Now, again, that's coming from the court's syllabus,
but that is the key holding in Graf v. DeJoy.

(02:14):
So, So in other words, what it's saying in very practical terms is if you are
an employee and you're going to your employer and saying, hey,
I'd like to get a religious accommodation.
Then if the employer is going to deny that religious accommodation,

(02:34):
what the Supreme Court is saying is that the
employer has to show that granting an accommodation is going to result in a
substantial increased cost in relation to the conduct of its business now I
gave you the example in religion law quiz number 96 of my daughter who was working at an amusement park and.

(02:57):
Wanted to get Sundays off so she could go to church.
And she went to the employer and they granted it to her.
And that's an easy one because let's assume that the amusement park had said, sorry, can't do it.
Well, that would, you know, switching my daughter to a weekday or rescheduling
her so she didn't work on Sunday would not result in a substantial increase

(03:21):
in costs to the amusement part,
because they have hundreds of teenagers that they could switch around.
It almost sounds bad when you think about it, but it almost feels like teenagers
are fungible. And in a certain sense, that's not completely true.
Obviously, we're all individuals, we are all unique. But on another level,

(03:42):
when you have hundreds of employees, and they all are doing essentially the
same thing, you can move a lot of them around without much difficulty.
So anyway, and I just need to be careful so I don't run into trouble.
Each of us are individual people. We are all children of God.

(04:02):
I very much firmly believe and know that, and we are not fungible as if this
were grain or cash or anything else.
I say that a little bit jokingly, just tongue-in-cheek.
So, all right, that does it for today's religion law quiz. I will see you on
quiz number 98, where we're going to continue our discussion of Graffi de Joy.

(04:46):
Music.