Groff v. DeJoy

Last updated

Groff v. DeJoy
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 18, 2023
Decided June 29, 2023
Full case nameGerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General
Docket no. 22-174
Citations600 U.S. 447 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorGroff v. DeJoy, No. 5:19-cv-1879 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2021), aff'd, Groff v. Dejoy, 35 F.4th 162 (3d Cir. 2022); cert. granted (Jan. 13, 2023)
Questions presented
(1) Whether this Court should disapprove its more-than-de-minimis-cost test for Title VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977); and
(2) Whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's co-workers as opposed to the business entity.
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceSotomayor, joined by Jackson
Laws applied
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding religious liberty and employment accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) had established that an employer could deny an employee religious exemptions from work if they could show "undue hardship" in making the accommodation, a vague phrase at the center of Groff. The case was decided unanimously for Groff by the Court. While generally upholding Trans World, the court clarified that increased costs that are more than 'de minimis' are not sufficient to demonstrate 'undue hardship', and that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that granting the exemption would incur "substantial increased costs" compared to the normal costs of business.

Contents

Background

Gerald E. Groff was a mail carrier, specifically a Rural Carrier Associate (RCA), working for the United States Postal Service (USPS) from 2012 until 2019. He is an evangelical, Protestant Christian and observes Sunday Sabbath. As a result, his religion requires him to rest and worship on a Sunday instead of working. [1]

In 2013, Amazon contracted USPS to deliver their packages. Quarryville, Pennsylvania soon became an important hub and started delivering Amazon packages from 2015 onwards. Groff was initially an RCA at the Quarryville post office and informed USPS of his religious need and his inability to work on Sundays. Accordingly, the USPS moved to accommodate his religious requirements by allowing him not to work on Sunday insofar as he covered the other shifts throughout the week. [2]

However, in May 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USPS and the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association only allowed the exemption of work on Sunday on two conditions; (1) if the person had applied for leave on that day, and, (2) if the person would have exceeded the limit of 40 hours of work that week on Sunday. [2]

The MOU did not provide Groff with a religious exemption to working on Sundays and as a result, the USPS again moved to accommodate him by transferring him to a smaller station that did not fulfill Amazon deliveries, the Holtwood post office. [2]

Similarly to Quarryville, Holtwood also started Sunday Amazon deliveries in March 2017. The postmaster at Holtwood offered to allow Groff to pray on Sunday morning before returning to work later in the day, but he declined the offer. In the peak season of 2017, another RCA volunteered to take over his shifts on Sunday, but that worker fell ill, leaving the rest of the RCAs and the postmaster to be additionally burdened to take over delivery on Sundays. [1]

Groff continued to be absent from his scheduled work on Sundays after the 2017 peak season and consequently was punished, so he filed a complaint asking USPS to transfer him to a job that did not require him to work on Sundays. This complaint was promptly denied as no position in USPS had such an exemption. [1]

Groff eventually resigned in 2019 and sued the USPS for two reasons, alleging he was "disparate(ly) treat(ed)" due to his religion and for failure to accommodate his religion. [1]

Proceedings below

Groff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing that USPS discriminated against him. [1]

In his first argument, Groff argued that he had direct evidence that the USPS discriminated against him. Nevertheless, the court found the evidence provided by Groff against the USPS to be insufficient. Therefore, the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test was used, which placed the burden on the plaintiff, Groff, to show that there was a prima facie case of religious discrimination, which he did. The burden then shifted to the USPS to reason if there was a non-discriminatory reason to do so; the USPS did so by proving the importance of Sunday Amazon delivery due to their poor financial situation. The burden shifted back to the plaintiff to prove a pretext, which he failed to do. Therefore, the court rejected his first argument. [1]

In his second argument on failure to accommodate, the court rejected the argument, saying that the employer does not need to entirely rectify the conflict to accommodate and they do not need to accommodate the request due to Groff's request adding an undue hardship on the company. The court added that satisfying the demands by the petitioner is more than a de minimis burden, as set forth by Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison . [1]

Groff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision by a 2–1 vote, with Judge Thomas Hardiman dissenting. [2]

Groff then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Supreme Court

Fifteen Republican members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff, on September 26, 2022, arguing that the standard set in Hardison for "undue hardship" was irreconciliable with the text and congressional purpose of Title VII, [3] asking the court to grant certiorari and overturn its precedent.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 13, 2023, and heard oral argument on April 18, 2023. [4] [5]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 9–0 for Groff, remanding the case back to the Third Circuit. [6] Justice Alito wrote the opinion, Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion which Justice Jackson joined.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion clarified Title VII's standard of "undue hardship" does not mean de minimis. The ruling states that "undue hardship is very different from de minimis" and that an employer even "showing more than de minimis cost" in providing religious accommodation "does not suffice to establish undue hardship." This ruling places additional onus on the employer to prove that the burden placed on them to accommodate an employee's religious needs is "substantial in the overall context of an employer's business" to deny that employee's religious needs.

Both parties elaboration of their test, where Groff argued that lower courts should follow the jurisprudence under the American Disabilities Act (ADA) to compel companies to accommodate an employee's religious exemption from work and conversely the United States Argued that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) construction of Hardison was "basically correct", was found by the court to be "too far" and was squarely rejected.

Concurring opinion

In her 3-page concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that for many years the EEOC had already been interpreting the "undue hardship" to be on the conduct of the company's business. She also added that the court's decision to not overrule the Hardison test for a "significant difficulty or expense standard" test, similar to the one in the ADA, to be the right decision and signalled to Congress to make that decision themselves. Lastly, she clarified that burdens on co-workers may be undue hardship. She explained that animus towards co-workers and things like coordinating voluntary shift swaps are not undue hardship, but clarified that effects on co-workers can still be "undue hardship" to the employer.

See also

Related Research Articles

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

<i>British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

British Columbia v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) is a proposed amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would limit employers' discretion to decline to accommodate the religious practices of their employees or prospective employees in the United States. WRFA would amend that part of title VII which is codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). In its current form (as of 2013), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j) forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, including "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The 2013 version of WRFA would delete the phrase "he is unable", and substitute for it: "the employer is unable, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<i>Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School District 23 Central Okanagan</span> School district in British Columbia, Canada

School District 23 Central Okanagan is a school district in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia. It includes the cities of Kelowna, and West Kelowna, and the District Municipalities of Lake Country, and Peachland, and is the 5th largest district in BC. The boundaries of the school district are identical to those of the Regional District of Central Okanagan.

<i>Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court found that an employer was under a duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees to the point of undue hardship.

An undue hardship is an American legal term referring to special or specified circumstances that partially or fully exempt a person or organization from performance of a legal obligation so as to avoid an unreasonable or disproportionate burden or obstacle.

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), is a decision by the US Supreme Court that held that preliminary work activities, if controlled by the employer and performed entirely for the employer's benefit, are properly included as working time under Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision is known as the "portal to portal case."

Religion and business have throughout history interacted in ways that relate to and affected one another, as well as influenced sociocultural evolution, political geographies, and labour laws. As businesses expand globally they seek new markets which leads to expanding their corporation's norms and rules to encompass the new locations norms which most often involve religious rules and terms.

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case establishing precedent regarding the limits of free exercise of religious conscience by employers.

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute providing employees with an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015), was an American legal case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison policy which prohibited a Muslim prisoner from growing a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Montana law permitting only licensed physicians to perform abortions. The Court summarily reversed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had held that the law was likely intended to inhibit abortion access. In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court found that there was no evidence that the Montana legislature acted with an invalid intent. The Court also reiterated its earlier holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the states have broad flexibility to regulate abortion so long as their regulations do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Three dissenting justices, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote that they would have declined to hear the case because proceedings were still pending in the lower courts. The law itself was later struck down by the Montana Supreme Court on state-constitutional grounds.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), is a landmark decision on religious liberty and employment law. In 1977, the US Supreme Court held that an employer may discharge an employee who observes a seventh-day sabbath, and that such employee is not entitled to equal employment opportunity protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion. However, subsequent legal developments and cases have challenged this precedent's validity.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Groff v. DeJoy, Civil Action No. 19-1879". casetext.com. Retrieved January 24, 2023 via Casetext Search + Citator.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Groff v. Dejoy, 35 F.4th 162". casetext.com. Retrieved January 24, 2023 via Casetext Search + Citator.
  3. "Brief of Members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). SupremeCourt.gov.
  4. "Groff v. DeJoy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
  5. "Docket for 22-174". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
  6. "Groff v. DeJoy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 29, 2023.