Quiz #98 the Heuristic that Groff v. DeJoy corrected

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that we use to reach decisions.  We all use heuristics and they can be very helpful.  But sometimes our use of a heuristic can be an Achilles heel because our generation and use of the heuristic overlooks critical details which, when they are considered, helps us realize that the heuristic that we used and created is incorrect. 

 

With that concept in mind, when you analyze the Supreme Court’s recent Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023) decision it becomes clear that several courts had previously employed a heuristic with respect to a prior Supreme Court case.  The Groff decision identified that heuristic (although the Supreme Court didn’t call it such) and then it pointed to several key aspects in its prior decision which showed that the heuristic phrase was incorrect.  For our two-part quiz today, (a) what was the heuristic phrase that was used and (b) what was the name of the prior decision from which that heuristic phrase came from? 

 

(If you get both these answers right then you must be an L&E rockstar!)

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  The heuristic phrase was “more than a de minimis cost” and it came from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977).  Consider what the Supreme Court said:

 

We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer's “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61–62 (argument of Solicitor General). This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue hardship” in ordinary speech.

Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2294 (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 engaging episode of the Religion Law Podcast, exploring the realm of religious freedom and other religion law-related subjects. This episode, number 98, continues with our discussion on the 2023 Graf v. DeJoy Supreme Court decision, uncovering a different perspective with a deeper insight.

Hosted by Michael Fielding, this episode explores the concept of heuristic, a mental shortcut, and how it occasionally leads to overlooking crucial details that could reshape our understanding of a situation or event. Analyzing the Supreme Court's Groff v. DeJoy decision reveals how several courts regularly employed a heuristic approach to a prior Supreme Court case, resulting in the Supreme Court pointing out the overlooked aspects in its prior decision.

Fielding also discusses the implications and practical takeaways from the Groff v. DeJoy decision on employers and employees. The Supreme Court held that under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the business. It emphasizes that an employer must prove a substantial burden should they wish to deny a religious accommodation under Title VII. Misinterpretation of the heuristic phrase "more than a de minimis cost," leads courts to focus on one small phrase from the Transworld Airlines vs. Hardison decision, rather than the big picture.

Through an understanding of the overarching requirement for substantial burden, the Supreme Court offered a corrected perspective. Life lesson in this episode revolves around the importance of avoiding myopic perspectives and viewing situations through a more encompassing lens. Journey with us as we dissect legal decisions, helping you become a labor and employment superstar.

Enjoy the deep dives, insights, and life lessons from the world of law and religion. Discover the valuable perspectives that could reshape your understanding, not just in law, but in life too.

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 98, numero 90, Ocho, where we are continuing

(00:24):
our riveting fascinating discussion of the Supreme Court's 2023 Graf v. DeJoy decision.
All right, we're going to take a different twist today with the quiz.
Now, a heuristic is a mental shortcut that we use to reach decisions.
We all use heuristics, and they can be very helpful,
but sometimes our use of a heuristic can be an Achilles heel because our generation

(00:50):
and use of heuristics overlooks critical details, which, when they are considered,
helps us realize that the heuristic that we used and created is incorrect.
Now, with that concept in mind, when you analyze the Supreme Court's recent
Groff v. DeJoy decision from 2023, it becomes clear that several courts had

(01:12):
previously employed a heuristic with respect to a prior Supreme Court case.
The Groff decision identified identify that heuristic, although the Supreme
Court didn't call it a heuristic.
And then the Supreme Court pointed to several key aspects in its prior decision,
which showed that the heuristic phrase was incorrect.
Now, for our two-part quiz today, oh, we are pushing you to the limits,

(01:37):
aren't we? Ooh, two-part quiz today.
So for our two-part quiz today, what was the heuristic phrase that was used?
And B, what was the name of the prior decision from which that heuristic phrase came from?
Now, and I'll say this, if you can get both of these answers right,

(01:57):
then you are a labor and employment superstar.
And if you can't get them right, like the vast majority of the world, then that's fine.
Guess what? You are like the rest of us and just learning, which is completely good, right?
We all start at the bottom of a ladder and climb up one rung at a time.
And labor and employment superstars are simply people that have been climbing

(02:21):
the ladder longer than the rest of us. So.
Here's the answer to the question. So the heuristic phrase was,
quote, more than a de minimis cost, close quote.
And it came from the Transworld Airlines, Inc.
Versus Hardison decision the Supreme Court issued in 1977. Now,

(02:41):
here's what the Supreme Court said in the Groff v.
DeJoy case, and I'll have the citation in the show notes.
Quote, we hold that showing more than a de minimis cost, as that phrase is used
in common parlance, does not suffice to establish undue hardship under Title VII.
Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer's undue

(03:05):
hardship defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to substantial burdens,
and that formulation better explains the decision.
We, therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that undue hardship
is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business.

(03:26):
This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of undue
hardship in ordinary speech, close quote.
All right. So now what are the practical takeaways here from this?
Well, I think the practical takeaway is let's just kind of loop back and talk about,
you know, big picture perspective where we've been focusing on the Graffi DeJoy

(03:52):
decision where the Supreme Court held that under Title VII,
it requires employers to accommodate the religious practice of their employees
unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.
That was the holding in the case and.
In particular, what the court is saying is that if the employer wants to deny

(04:18):
a religious accommodation under Title VII,
the employer has to show that the burden of granting the accommodation would
result in substantial increased costs in relations to the conduct of the particular business.
Now, here's where we get into this whole de minimis language and everything else.
So you had this 1977 Transworld Airlines versus Hardison decision,

(04:44):
and the Supreme Court had gone through and talked about substantial burdens,
da-da-da-da-da, in various ways.
And then the Supreme Court had this one-line phrase in there that they have
to show that there was more than a de minimis cost.
Well, guess what? The courts – and this is not just a dig on courts.
This is just really something that we do in human nature. But in this situation,

(05:07):
the courts just really latched onto this phrase.
Oh, the Supreme Court has said more than a de minimis cost.
And so they honed in on like one little phrase in the entire decision.
And then that's how it was interpreted, that the employer can deny a religious
accommodation if it's going to be more than a de minimis cost.
Well, that's not a very high standard. And with the Supreme Court and the Graff v.

(05:31):
DeJoy decision saying, oh, hold on, step back, look at the big picture.
You were really just focusing on this one little phrase from this Transworld
Airlines versus Hardison decision.
But when you look at the case itself, when you look at the big picture,
you will see that we were focusing on a substantial burden.

(05:56):
And the Supreme Court was essentially saying, we need this.
It's like getting glasses. We need to give you proper lenses.
We need to help you see the big picture.
You've been myopically looking at one little phrase in the decision and wrongly
interpreting the decision.
But when you stand back and look at what the decision as a whole is holding,

(06:17):
then you get the proper perspective and you know how to proceed.
A little bit of a life lesson right there, right?
I think, all right, here's life lesson 101 from Mike Philbin.
And what I would say here is that a lot of times, again, this gets to the point of a heuristic.
We look at mental shortcuts and we all do it. It's human nature.

(06:39):
And the heuristics can be incredibly helpful at times, but occasionally we get
so focused on the little heuristic, the little cliche statement,
that we begin to adopt that for, you know, absolute truth, and we fail to realize

(07:00):
that that heuristic has some limitations.
And sometimes we need to step back, look at the big picture,
and then decide how are we going to properly apply this.
All right, so that's life lesson today from Mike Feldman. All right, enough of that.
But let's call it today. We'll see you on the next Religion Law Quiz.

(07:25):
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.
Music.