Undue Hardship in Religious Accommodation After Groff v. DeJoy

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer cannot deny your religious accommodation request unless it can prove that granting it would impose substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. That is the current undue hardship standard for religious accommodation under Title VII, and it is a meaningfully higher bar than the one employers relied on for the previous forty-six years.¹

The Standard Employers Now Have to Meet

For decades, courts read a line from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison to mean that anything “more than a de minimis cost” was enough to justify a denial.² A modest scheduling headache or small administrative expense could sink a request. In Groff, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected that reading. Justice Alito wrote that Hardison itself “referred repeatedly to ‘substantial’ burdens,” and that the de minimis phrase had been pulled out of context.¹

The new formulation puts weight on two things. First, the cost must be substantial, not trivial. Second, it is measured against the actual operation of the specific employer, not against some abstract standard. Courts are directed to consider “all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer.”¹ The burden of proof sits on the employer, and it must be carried by a preponderance of the evidence.

How Business Size and Operations Shape the Analysis

Substantial is not a fixed dollar figure. A $2,000 overtime expense to cover a shift swap might be a real burden for a twenty-person landscaping company running on thin margins, and barely noticeable at a corporation with thousands of employees and millions in revenue. A specialized manufacturing facility staffing a critical shift with a skeleton crew faces different math than a retail chain with a deep bench of part-time workers who can fill in.

Employers claiming financial hardship need to back it up with real numbers. Courts look at overall financial resources, headcount, the cost structure of the specific facility involved, and the operational impact of the accommodation on day-to-day business. A blanket assertion that something is “too expensive,” offered without documentation, tends to fail. So does speculation about what might go wrong; the impact has to be actual and demonstrable.

When Co-worker Impact Counts

Accommodations often ripple through a team. Someone else may have to swap shifts, cover a task, or adjust hours. That ripple alone is not undue hardship. The Court held that co-worker impacts “are relevant only to the extent those impacts go on to affect the conduct of the business.”¹ The employer has to show a further step: the reshuffling actually reduces productivity, compromises safety, or undermines the ability to serve customers.

Co-worker resentment carries even less weight. The Court stated directly that “bias or hostility to a religious practice or accommodation cannot supply a defense.” If colleagues are unhappy that someone else gets Saturdays off for religious reasons, the employer cannot cite that unhappiness as grounds for denial.¹ Managing morale is the employer’s job; it is not a reason to override the employee’s legal rights.

Before Groff, treating co-worker complaints as a shortcut to denial was common. That shortcut is closed. The question is whether the business itself suffers substantial, measurable harm.

Seniority Systems and Union Contracts

One area where hardship arguments tend to hold up is when an accommodation would override an established seniority system or violate a collective bargaining agreement. Disrupting the order in which employees pick shifts or bid on assignments can create real operational problems, especially where those rules are contractually binding.

Even here, a blanket refusal is not enough. An employer that identifies a conflict with a seniority system still has to look at alternatives that work within the framework: voluntary shift swaps with willing coworkers, posting a master schedule so the employee can find their own coverage, or reassigning specific tasks without disturbing bid rights. The word that matters is “voluntary.” Forcing another employee to give up a seniority-based preference likely crosses the line. Asking whether anyone is willing to trade does not.

The Employer’s Duty to Explore Alternatives

Title VII does not treat each accommodation request as a single yes-or-no question. The employer’s obligation is to reasonably accommodate the religious practice, which means considering the full range of options. The Court made this explicit in Groff: an employer “must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options would also be necessary.”¹

If your first-choice accommodation genuinely is too costly, the employer must work with you to find something else. The EEOC describes this as a duty to “confer fully and promptly to explore other available accommodation options.”³ Alternatives might include different scheduling arrangements, reassigning nonessential tasks, allowing remote work on certain days, or adjusting break times. An employer that denies the initial request and closes the file is in a weak position. Courts will ask what other options existed and why they were never tried.

You are entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the exact one you requested. But “reasonable” has to actually respect your religious practice. A compromise that still forces you to violate your beliefs does not count.

Making the Request and Protecting Yourself

The process starts when you tell your employer you need a change for religious reasons. There is no required form or magic language. A verbal conversation with your supervisor counts, though putting the request in writing gives you a record if the situation deteriorates.³

Once you have made the request, you are expected to participate in the back-and-forth. If your employer proposes an alternative that genuinely addresses your religious need, refusing to engage with it weakens your position. Keep records of every request, every response, and every conversation. If your employer denies your accommodation without explanation, or simply never follows up, that silence itself can become evidence that the company failed its legal obligation.

If Your Accommodation Is Denied

Title VII’s accommodation requirements apply to employers with 15 or more employees for at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.⁴ Workers at smaller businesses fall outside the federal framework, though some states have their own religious accommodation laws that reach smaller employers.

If a covered employer denies your accommodation and you believe the denial violates Title VII, the first step is filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. You generally cannot skip straight to a lawsuit. You have 180 calendar days from the date of the discriminatory act to file, extended to 300 days if you are in a state or locality that has its own employment discrimination agency, which most states do.⁵ Missing the deadline usually kills the claim. Using a company grievance process does not pause the EEOC clock.

Federal employees follow a separate process with a much tighter window: contact an agency EEO counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory act.⁵

You can start the private-sector filing through the EEOC’s online public portal by submitting an inquiry and scheduling an intake interview.⁶ After the charge is filed, the EEOC investigates, which typically takes around ten months. If the agency does not resolve the matter, it issues a right-to-sue letter. You then have 90 days from receiving that letter to file in federal court. You can request the letter earlier if you want to move to litigation faster.

What You Can Recover

An employee who wins a religious accommodation case can recover back pay for lost wages, reinstatement, and injunctive relief requiring the employer to change its policies.⁷

Compensatory damages for emotional distress and punitive damages for intentional discrimination are also available, but federal law caps the combined amount based on employer size:⁸

15 to 100 employees: $50,000
101 to 200 employees: $100,000
201 to 500 employees: $200,000
More than 500 employees: $300,000

The caps apply only to compensatory and punitive damages. Back pay, front pay, and equitable relief are uncapped. Attorney’s fees are recoverable by the prevailing party under Title VII, calculated based on hours reasonably spent multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community.⁹ Fee-shifting matters practically: an employee with a strong case but limited personal resources can still find legal representation, because courts have rejected strict proportionality between fees and damages in civil rights cases.

1
Supreme Court of the United States. Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023)
2
Justia. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977)
3
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fact Sheet Religious Accommodations in the Workplace
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000e – Definitions
5
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Time Limits For Filing A Charge
6
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filing A Charge of Discrimination
7
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1981a – Damages in Cases of Intentional Discrimination in Employment
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 2000e-5 – Enforcement Provisions