Title VII and Religious Accommodations in the Workplace After Groff v. Dejoy (2023)

• Published date: 01 March 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241289949
• Author: Robert Roberts
• Date: 01 March 2025
• Subject Matter: Legal Briefs

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241289949

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2025, Vol. 45(1) 201 –221

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X241289949

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Legal Briefs

Title VII and Religious

Accommodations in the

Workplace After Groff v.

Dejoy (2023)

Robert Roberts1

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy rejected a 50-year precedent

regarding the application of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights to requests

by private and public employees for Title VII workplace religious accommodations.

The article evaluates the impact of 73 U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals

decisions decided after Groff to determine whether Groff has had an impact on

how lower federal courts have evaluated requests for Title VII workplace religious

accommodations. The article also evaluates the role of U.S. District Courts as

gatekeepers for Title VII workplace religious accommodation lawsuits. Finally, the

article discusses the impact of Groff on the most common types of workplace

religious accommodation requests. The article argues that employers will have greater

difficulty persuading U.S. District Court to grant motions to dismiss or motions for

summary judgment to end Title religious accommodation lawsuits.

Keywords

Groff v. Dejoy, workplace religious accomodation, Title VII, Undue hardship, United

States Supreme Court

Introduction

In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that if

an employee’s Title VII workplace religious accommodation request had more than a

di minimis financial impact on an employer, Title VII permitted an employer to refuse

to grant the employee’s workplace religious accommodation. For 50 years, the di

1James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Robert Roberts, Department of Political Science, James Madison University, 239 Campbell St,

Harrisonburg, VA 22801-4013, USA.

Email: robertrn@jmu.edu

1289949ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X241289949Review of Public Personnel AdministrationRoberts

research-article2024

202 Review of Public Personnel Administration 45(1)

minimis financial impact defense made it almost impossible for employees to prevail

in Title VII workplace religious accommodation disputes. The di minimis financial

impact test reflected acceptance of the argument that granting the religious accommo-

dation requests of employees reduced organizational efficiency. A 2023 study found

that the Trans World Airlines, Inc. decision had a particularly harsh impact on work-

ing-class employees because the working class often had inflexible work schedules

and uniform requirements (Touchet & Lingo, 2023, p. 5). The di minimis financial

impact test proved a disaster for employees seeking to exercise sincerely held religious

beliefs with their job responsibilities and duties (Rothstein, 2022, pp. 8–9). In Groff v.

Dejoy (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court replaced the di minimis undue financial hard-

ship test with a substantial financial burden test (Graber, 2023). To evaluate the impact

of the Groff decision on Title VII workplace religious accommodation lawsuits, the

article examines religious accommodation cases decided by U.S. District Courts and

the U.S. Courts of Appeals for 1 year after Groff. Based on the evaluation of these

cases, the article argues that public and private employers may find it more difficult to

persuade federal courts to dismiss these cases prior to going before a jury by granting

either motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. The article also argues

that public and private employers should view the Groff decision as a wake-up call for

employers to show greater flexibility in evaluating their employees’ workplace reli-

gious accommodation requests. Most employee workplace religious accommodation

requests do not work a substantial financial hardship on public and private employers

covered by Title VII.

The First Amendment and Title VII Religious

Accommodation Dichotomy

Any discussion of Title VII workplace religious accommodation must be careful to

distinguish between Title VII workplace religious accommodation jurisprudence and

First Amendment workplace religious accommodation jurisprudence. Title VII covers

private and public employers with more than 15 employees. The First Amendment

prohibits government employers from violating employees’ First Amendment work-

place freedom of religious expression rights. Public or private employees alleging a

Title VII violation must file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) within a 180-day window. The statute of limitations for filing a

First Amendment workplace religious accommodation lawsuit will vary from state to

state. As one federal District Court explained, “[i]t is well settled law that the appropri-

ate statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. fj 1983 action is the forum state’s statute of

limitations for a tortious personal injury action” (Porter v. Intermediate Unit I, 2007,

pp. *7–8) . Pennsylvania law, for example, gives plaintiffs as much as 2 years to file

similar state tort lawsuits (Porter v. Intermediate Unit I, 2007, pp. *7–8).

Title VII and First Amendment workplace religious accommodation lawsuits

require plaintiffs to allege their employer took an adverse action against them after

their employers refused to accommodate their workplace religious beliefs. An

employer, for example, refuses to allow an employee to take Saturday off to comply