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 workspace promotes an inclusive environment, hence r
