U.S. Supreme Court Examines Religious Accommodation

Religious discrimination in employment remains a significant threat to employee rights despite efforts at the federal, state, and local level. This type of discrimination can take many forms, including:

·         Refusing to hire an individual because of their religious beliefs or practices.

·         Firing an employee or forcing them to resign due to their religious practices.

·         Failing to make reasonable accommodations for the employee’s religious practices.

·         Making derogatory comments, or allowing others to make derogatory comments, about their religious beliefs or practices.

·         Providing different compensation or benefits based on an employee's religion.

Anti-discrimination laws ban such unfair treatment of an individual in the workplace based on their religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation. In Washington, the state law that prohibits workplace discrimination is the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60. The WLAD specifically makes it illegal for employers to refuse to hire, promote, or provide equal pay and benefits to an employee based on their “creed.” The Washington Supreme Court has recognized that “Washington courts have long equated the term ‘creed’ in the WLAD with the term ‘religion’ in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 489, 325 P.3d 193 (2014).

Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious practices, such as allowing them to take time off for religious holidays or providing them with a private space for prayer. However, in the 1977 case Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling which severely limited employees’ abilities to fight for religious accommodation in the workplace under federal law. The case involved a TWA employee, Clifton Hardison, who was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs as a Seventh-day Adventist. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of TWA, deciding that employers are only required to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious beliefs so long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The Court defined an undue burden as one which requires an employer to bear more than a minimal cost.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court hear argument in the case Groff v. DeJoy which may redefine what it means for an employer to be unduly burdened. In that case, a U.S. Postal Service employee, David Groff, requested a religious accommodation to not work Sundays in order to observe his religious belief after the Postal Service began delivering Amazon packages out of Groff’s post office in rural Pennsylvania. Groff offered to transfer to another branch where he would not be required to work Sundays and the Postal Service offered to allow him to swap shifts with other employees. When Groff was unable to fill all his missed Sundays by swapping with another employee, he was forced to resign in lieu of termination.

It is likely that with this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether to redefine “undue burden” in religious accommodation cases to be more in-line with the definition of “undue burden” found in the context of discrimination on other grounds, particularly disability discrimination where an undue hardship must present an employer with “significant difficulty” to accommodate. But even if the Court does not go that far in redefining “undue burden,” any shifting of the sands in favor of employees will be a welcome development.