Undue Hardship After Groff

Abstract

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires an employer to accommodate an employee whose religious beliefs or practices conflict with work requirements unless doing so would impose "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." Courts have long permitted employers to prove undue hardship based on how an accommodation impacts other workers. But in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court turned this longstanding practice on its head, mandating that an employer must now take the "further logical step" of proving how an accommodation's impact on coworkers in turn negatively affects the business itself. 

This new requirement is a mistake. Not only is it impractical, but it is also unnecessary. Social science research has long confirmed an unequivocal link between worker morale and a host of organizational outcomes. When coworker morale decreases because of accommodation, organizations pay a hefty price. Low morale is associated with increased absenteeism, burnout, and turnover, and decreased productivity and organizational citizenship. Because the relationship between low morale and poor organizational outcomes is not subject to reasonable dispute, courts should take judicial notice that an accommodation that adversely impacts coworkers has an adverse impact on the business itself, thus obviating the need for employers to comply with the Court's ill-advised new evidentiary requirement.