Three religious accommodation trends: The good, the bad and the “buckle up for turbulence”
Two years ago, the long dormant duty to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices was awakened by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. Dejoy . Gone were the days when an employer could justify the denial of a religious accommodation by showing that it would have had more than a de minimis impact on the business . Many religious organizations (rightfully) lamented that this resulted in the routine denial of most accommodation requests. Groff eviscerated that standard. According to the Supreme Court, the denial of a religious accommodation requires proof that it would have caused “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business .” As the Supreme Court often does, it provided few details about the meaning of that requirement . Leaving them instead to be developed by the lower federal courts, on a case-by-case basis. Now, with two years of hindsight, that development is beginning to take shape. The good news: ...