Groff v. DeJoy ( 2023 )

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
GROFF v. DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 22–174. Argued April 18, 2023—Decided June 29, 2023
Petitioner Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian who believes for re-
ligious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. In
2012, Groff took a mail delivery job with the United States Postal Ser-
vice. Groff’s position generally did not involve Sunday work, but that
changed after USPS agreed to begin facilitating Sunday deliveries for
Amazon. To avoid the requirement to work Sundays on a rotating ba-
sis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station that did not make Sun-
day deliveries. After Amazon deliveries began at that station as well,
Groff remained unwilling to work Sundays, and USPS redistributed
Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other USPS staff. Groff received “progres-
sive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays, and he eventually re-
signed.
Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting
that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice
“without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.” 42
U. S. C. §2000e(j). The District Court granted summary judgment to
USPS. The Third Circuit affirmed based on this Court’s decision in
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, which it con-
strued to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de
minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hard-
ship.” 35 F. 4th 162, 174, n. 18 (quoting 432 U. S., at 84). The Third
Circuit found the de minimis cost standard met here, concluding that
exempting Groff from Sunday work had “imposed on his coworkers,
disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee mo-
rale.” 35 F. 4th, at 175.
Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommoda-
tion to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would re-
2 GROFF v. DEJOY
Syllabus
sult in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its par-
ticular business. Pp. 4–21.
(a) This case presents the Court’s first opportunity in nearly 50
years to explain the contours of Hardison. The background of that de-
cision helps to explain the Court’s disposition of this case. Pp. 4–15.
(1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for
covered employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individ-
ual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment,
because of such individual’s . . . religion.” §2000e–2(a)(1). As origi-
nally enacted, Title VII did not spell out what it meant by discrimina-
tion “because of . . . religion.” Subsequent regulations issued by the
EEOC obligated employers “to make reasonable accommodations to
the religious needs of employees” whenever doing so would not create
“undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 29 CFR
§1605.1 (1968). In 1970, however, the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII
did not require an employer “to accede to or accommodate” a Sabbath
religious practice because to do so “would raise grave” Establishment
Clause questions. Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co., 429 F. 2d 324, 334.
This Court affirmed Dewey by an evenly divided vote. See 402 U. S.
689. Congress responded by amending Title VII in 1972 to track the
EEOC’s regulatory language and to clarify that employers must “rea-
sonably accommodate. . . an employee’s or prospective employee’s reli-
gious observance or practice” unless the employer is “unable” to do so
“without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
§2000e(j). Pp. 4–6.
(2) Hardison concerned an employment dispute that arose prior to
the 1972 amendments to Title VII. In 1967, Trans World Airlines
hired Larry Hardison to work in a department that operated “24 hours
per day, 365 days per year” and played an “essential role” for TWA by
providing parts needed to repair and maintain aircraft. Hardison, 432
U. S., at 66. Hardison later underwent a religious conversion and be-
gan missing work to observe the Sabbath. Initial conflicts with Hardi-
son’s work schedule were resolved, but conflicts resurfaced when he
transferred to another position in which he lacked the seniority to
avoid work during his Sabbath. Attempts at accommodation failed,
and TWA discharged Hardison for insubordination.
Hardison sued TWA and his union, and the Eighth Circuit sided
with Hardison. The Eighth Circuit found that reasonable accommoda-
tions were available to TWA, and rejected the defendants’ Establish-
ment Clause arguments. Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 527
F. 2d 33, 42–44. This Court granted certiorari. TWA’s petition for
certiorari asked this Court to decide whether the 1972 amendment of
Title VII violated the Establishment Clause as applied by the Eighth
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
Syllabus
Circuit, particularly insofar as that decision had approved an accom-
modation that allegedly overrode seniority rights granted by the rele-
vant collective bargaining agreement. At the time, some thought that
the Court’s now-abrogated decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S.
602—which adopted a test under which any law whose “principal or
primary effect” “was to advance religion” was unconstitutional, id., at
612–613—posed a serious problem for the 1972 amendment of Title
VII. Ultimately, however, constitutional concerns played no on-stage
role in the Court’s decision in Hardison. Instead, the Court’s opinion
stated that “the principal issue on which TWA and the union came to
this Court” was whether Title VII “require[s] an employer and a union
who have agreed on a seniority system to deprive senior employees of
their seniority rights in order to accommodate a junior employee’s re-
ligious practices.” Hardison, 432 U. S., at 83, and n. 14. The Court
held that Title VII imposed no such requirement. Id., at 83, and n. 14.
This conclusion, the Court found, was “supported by the fact that sen-
iority systems are afforded special treatment under Title VII itself.”
Id., at 81. Applying this interpretation of Title VII and disagreeing
with the Eighth Circuit’s evaluation of the factual record, the Court
identified no way in which TWA, without violating seniority rights,
could have feasibly accommodated Hardison’s request for an exemp-
tion from work on his Sabbath.
The parties had not focused on determining when increased costs
amount to “undue hardship” under Title VII separately from the sen-
iority issue. But the Court’s opinion in Hardison contained this oft-
quoted sentence: “To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost
in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.” Alt-
hough many lower courts later viewed this line as the authoritative
interpretation of the statutory term “undue hardship,” the context ren-
ders that reading doubtful. In responding to Justice Marshall’s dis-
sent, the Court described the governing standard quite differently,
stating three times that an accommodation is not required when it en-
tails “substantial” “costs” or “expenditures.” Id., at 83, n. 14. Pp. 6–
12.
(3) Even though Hardison’s reference to “de minimis” was under-
cut by conflicting language and was fleeting in comparison to its dis-
cussion of the “principal issue” of seniority rights, lower courts have
latched on to “de minimis” as the governing standard. To be sure,
many courts have understood that the protection for religious adher-
ents is greater than “more than . . . de minimis” might suggest when
read in isolation. But diverse religious groups tell the Court that the
“de minimis” standard has been used to deny even minor accommoda-
tions. The EEOC has also accepted Hardison as prescribing a “more
than a de minimis cost” test, 29 CFR §1605.2(e)(1), though it has tried
4 GROFF v. DEJOY
Syllabus
to soften its impact, cautioning against extending the phrase to cover
such things as the “administrative costs” involved in reworking sched-
ules, the “infrequent” or temporary “payment of premium wages for a
substitute,” and “voluntary substitutes and swaps” when they are not
contrary to a “bona fide seniority system.” §§1605.2(e)(1), (2). Yet
some courts have rejected even the EEOC’s gloss on “de minimis,” re-
jecting accommodations the EEOC’s guidelines consider to be ordinar-
ily required. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that Hardi-
son does not compel courts to read the “more than de minimis”
standard “literally” or in a manner that undermines Hardison’s refer-
ences to “substantial” cost. Tr. of Oral Arg. 107. Pp. 12–15.
(b) The Court holds that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as
that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish
“undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that
one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense,
Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that for-
mulation better explains the decision. The Court understands Hardi-
son to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is sub-
stantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. This fact-
specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “un-
due hardship” in ordinary speech. Pp. 15–21.
(1) To determine what an employer must prove to defend a denial
of a religious accommodation under Title VII, the Court begins with
Title VII's text. The statutory term, “hardship,” refers to, at a mini-
mum, “something hard to bear” and suggests something more severe
than a mere burden. If Title VII said only that an employer need not
be made to suffer a “hardship,” an employer could not escape liability
simply by showing that an accommodation would impose some sort of
additional costs. Adding the modifier “undue” means that the requi-
site burden or adversity must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable”
level. Understood in this way, “undue hardship” means something
very different from a burden that is merely more than de minimis, i.e.,
“very small or trifling.” The ordinary meaning of “undue hardship”
thus points toward a standard closer to Hardison’s references to “sub-
stantial additional costs” or “substantial expenditures.” 432 U. S., at
83, n. 14. Further, the Court’s reading of the statutory term comports
with pre-1972 EEOC decisions, so nothing in that history plausibly
suggests that “undue hardship” in Title VII should be read to mean
anything less than its meaning in ordinary use. Cf. George v.
McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___. And no support exists in other factors
discussed by the parties for reducing Hardison to its “more than a de
minimis cost” line. Pp. 16–18.
(2) The parties agree that the “de minimis” test is not right, but
they differ in the alternative language they propose. The Court thinks
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 5
Syllabus
it is enough to say that what an employer must show is that the burden
of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased
costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Hardison,
432 U. S. at 83, n. 14. Courts must apply the test to take into account
all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accom-
modations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature,
size, and operating cost of an employer. Pp. 18.
(3) The Court declines to adopt the elaborations of the applicable
standard that the parties suggest, either to incorporate Americans
with Disabilities Act case law or opine that the EEOC’s construction of
Hardison has been basically correct. A good deal of the EEOC’s guid-
ance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by
the Court’s clarifying decision. But it would not be prudent to ratify
in toto a body of EEOC interpretation that has not had the benefit of
the clarification the Court adopts today. What is most important is
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 commonsense manner that it would
use in applying any such test. Pp. 18–19.
(4) The Court also clarifies several recurring issues. First, as the
parties agree, Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommo-
dation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e(j).
Impacts on coworkers are relevant only to the extent those impacts go
on to affect the conduct of the business. A court must analyze whether
that further logical step is shown. Further, a hardship that is attribut-
able to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in gen-
eral, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice, cannot
be considered “undue.” Bias or hostility to a religious practice or ac-
commodation cannot supply a defense.
Second, Title VII requires that an employer “reasonably accommo-
date” an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the
reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommoda-
tions. Faced with an accommodation request like Groff ’s, an employer
must do more that conclude that forcing other employees to work over-
time would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other op-
tions would also be necessary. Pp. 19–20.
(c) Having clarified the Title VII undue-hardship standard, the
Court leaves the context-specific application of that clarified standard
in this case to the lower courts in the first instance. Pp. 21.
35 F. 4th 162, vacated and remanded.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SOTOMAYOR,
J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 22–174
_________________
GERALD E. GROFF, PETITIONER v.
LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[June 29, 2023]
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employ-
ers to accommodate the religious practice of their employ-
ees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on
the conduct of the employer’s business.” 78 Stat. 253, as
amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). Based on a line in this
Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,
432 U. S. 63, 84 (1977), many lower courts, including the
Third Circuit below, have interpreted “undue hardship” to
mean any effort or cost that is “more than . . . de minimis.”
In this case, however, both parties—the plaintiff-petitioner,
Gerald Groff, and the defendant-respondent, the Postmas-
ter General, represented by the Solicitor General—agree
that the de minimis reading of Hardison is a mistake. With
the benefit of thorough briefing and oral argument, we to-
day clarify what Title VII requires.
I
Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian who believes for
religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship
and rest, not “secular labor” and the “transport[ation]” of
2 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
worldly “goods.” App. 294. In 2012, Groff began his em-
ployment with the United States Postal Service (USPS),
which has more than 600,000 employees. He became a Ru-
ral Carrier Associate, a job that required him to assist reg-
ular carriers in the delivery of mail. When he took the po-
sition, it generally did not involve Sunday work. But within
a few years, that changed. In 2013, USPS entered into an
agreement with Amazon to begin facilitating Sunday deliv-
eries, and in 2016, USPS signed a memorandum of under-
standing with the relevant union (the National Rural Let-
ter Carriers’ Association) that set out how Sunday and
holiday parcel delivery would be handled. During a 2-
month peak season, each post office would use its own staff
to deliver packages. At all other times, Sunday and holiday
deliveries would be carried out by employees (including Ru-
ral Carrier Associates like Groff) working from a “regional
hub.” For Quarryville, Pennsylvania, where Groff was orig-
inally stationed, the regional hub was the Lancaster Annex.
The memorandum specifies the order in which USPS em-
ployees are to be called on for Sunday work outside the peak
season. First in line are each hub’s “Assistant Rural Carri-
ers”— part-time employees who are assigned to the hub and
cover only Sundays and holidays. Second are any volun-
teers from the geographic area, who are assigned on a ro-
tating basis. And third are all other carriers, who are com-
pelled to do the work on a rotating basis. Groff fell into this
third category, and after the memorandum of understand-
ing was adopted, he was told that he would be required to
work on Sunday. He then sought and received a transfer to
Holtwood, a small rural USPS station that had only seven
employees and that, at the time, did not make Sunday de-
liveries. But in March 2017, Amazon deliveries began there
as well.
With Groff unwilling to work on Sundays, USPS made
other arrangements. During the peak season, Sunday de-
liveries that would have otherwise been performed by Groff
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
Opinion of the Court
were carried out by the rest of the Holtwood staff, including
the postmaster, whose job ordinarily does not involve deliv-
ering mail. During other months, Groff ’s Sunday assign-
ments were redistributed to other carriers assigned to the
regional hub.1 Throughout this time, Groff continued to re-
ceive “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sun-
days. 35 F. 4th 162, 166 (CA3 2022). Finally, in January
2019, he resigned.2
A few months later, Groff sued under Title VII, asserting
that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath
practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of
[USPS’s] business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). The District
Court granted summary judgment to USPS, 2021 WL
1264030 (ED Pa., Apr. 6, 2021), and the Third Circuit af-
firmed. The panel majority felt that it was “bound by [the]
ruling” in Hardison, which it construed to mean “that re-
quiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’
to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hard-
ship.” 35 F. 4th, at 174, n. 18 (quoting 432 U. S., at 84).
Under Circuit precedent, the panel observed, this was “not
a difficult threshold to pass,” 35 F. 4th, at 174 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted), and it held that this low standard
was met in this case. Exempting Groff from Sunday work,
the panel found, had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted
——————
1 Other employees complained about the consequences of Groff ’s ab-
sences. While the parties dispute some of the details, it appears uncon-
tested that at least one employee filed a grievance asserting a conflict
with his contractual rights. After disputing any conflict with contract
rights, USPS eventually settled that claim, with the settlement reaffirm-
ing USPS’s commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding. App.
118, 125–126.
2 Groff represents that his resignation was in light of expected termi-
nation, and the District Court found “a genuine issue of material fact”
foreclosed summary judgment as to whether Groff suffered an adverse
employment action. 2021 WL 1264030,*8 (ED Pa., Apr. 6, 2021). The
Government does not dispute the point in this Court.
4 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee mo-
rale.” Id., at 175. Judge Hardiman dissented, concluding
that adverse “effects on USPS employees in Lancaster or
Holtwood” did not alone suffice to show the needed hard-
ship “on the employer’s business.” Id., at 177 (emphasis in
original).
We granted Groff ’s ensuing petition for a writ of certio-
rari. 598 U. S. ___ (2023).
II
Because this case presents our first opportunity in nearly
50 years to explain the contours of Hardison, we begin by
recounting the legal backdrop to that case, including the de-
velopment of the Title VII provision barring religious dis-
crimination and the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission’s (EEOC’s) regulations and guidance regarding
that prohibition. We then summarize how the Hardison
case progressed to final decision, and finally, we discuss
how courts and the EEOC have understood its significance.
This background helps to explain the clarifications we offer
today.
A
Since its passage, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
has made it unlawful for covered employers “to fail or refuse
to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to dis-
criminate against any individual with respect to his com-
pensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment,
because of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U. S. C.
§2000e–2(a)(1) (1964 ed.). As originally enacted, Title VII
did not spell out what it meant by discrimination “because
of . . . religion,” but shortly after the statute’s passage, the
EEOC interpreted that provision to mean that employers
were sometimes required to “accommodate” the “reasonable
religious needs of employees.” 29 CFR § 1605.1(a)(2) (1967).
After some tinkering, the EEOC settled on a formulation
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 5
Opinion of the Court
that obligated employers “to make reasonable accommoda-
tions to the religious needs of employees” whenever that
would not work an “undue hardship on the conduct of the
employer’s business.” 29 CFR § 1605.1 (1968).
Between 1968 and 1972, the EEOC elaborated on its un-
derstanding of “undue hardship” in a “long line of decisions”
addressing a variety of policies. Hardison, 432 U. S., at 85(Marshall, J., dissenting); see Brief for General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists as Amicus Curiae 10–22 (collect-
ing decisions). Those decisions addressed many accommo-
dation issues that still arise frequently today, including the
wearing of religious garb3 and time off from work to attend
to religious obligations.4
EEOC decisions did not settle the question of undue hard-
ship. In 1970, the Sixth Circuit held (in a Sabbath case)
that Title VII as then written did not require an employer
——————
3 See, e.g., EEOC Dec. No. 71–779, 1970 WL 3550, *2 (Dec. 21, 1970)
(no undue hardship in permitting nurse to wear religious headscarf).
4 See EEOC Dec. No. 71–463, 1970 WL 3544, *1–*2 (Nov. 13, 1970) (no
“undue hardship” or “unreasonable burde[n]” for employer to train co-
worker to cover two-week religious absence); EEOC Dec. No. 70–580,
1970 WL 3513, *1–*2 (Mar. 2, 1970) (manufacturing employer asked to
accommodate sundown-to-sundown Sabbath observance did not carry
“burden . . . to demonstrate undue hardship” where it did not address
“whether another employee could be trained to substitute for the Charg-
ing Party during Sabbath days, or whether already qualified personnel
ha[d] been invited to work a double shift”); EEOC Dec. No. 70–670, 1970
WL 3518, *2 (Mar. 30, 1970) (no “undue ‘hardship’ ” in having other em-
ployees take on a few more on-call Saturdays per year); see also EEOC
Dec. No. 70–110, 1969 WL 2908, *1–*2 (Aug. 27, 1969) (employer could
not deny employee all Sunday “overtime opportunities” on basis of em-
ployee’s religious inability to work Saturday, where others not working
the full weekend had been accommodated, notwithstanding employer’s
claim of “considerable expense”); EEOC Dec. No. 70–99, 1969 WL 2905,
*1 (Aug. 27, 1969) (no obligation to accommodate seasonal employee un-
available for Saturday work, where employer showed both “no available
pool of qualified employees” to substitute and a “practical impossibility
of obtaining and training an employee” to cover one day a week for six
weeks).
6 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
“to accede to or accommodate” religious practice because
that “would raise grave” Establishment Clause questions.
Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co., 429 F. 2d 324, 334. This
Court granted certiorari, 400 U. S. 1008, but then affirmed
by an evenly divided vote, 402 U. S. 689 (1971).
Responding to Dewey and another decision rejecting any
duty to accommodate an employee’s observance of the Sab-
bath, Congress amended Title VII in 1972. Hardison, 432
U. S., at 73–74; id., at 88–89 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Tracking the EEOC’s regulatory language, Congress pro-
vided that “[t]he term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of reli-
gious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an
employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably ac-
commodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s reli-
gious observance or practice without undue hardship on the
conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j)
(1970 ed., Supp. II).
B
The Hardison case concerned a dispute that arose during
the interval between the issuance of the EEOC’s ”undue
hardship” regulation and the 1972 amendment to Title VII.
In 1967, Larry Hardison was hired as a clerk at the Stores
Department in the Kansas City base of Trans World Air-
lines (TWA). The Stores Department was responsible for
providing parts needed to repair and maintain aircraft.
Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, 375 F. Supp. 877, 889
(WD Mo. 1974). It played an “essential role” and operated
“24 hours per day, 365 days per year.” Hardison, 432 U. S.,
at 66. After taking this job, Hardison underwent a religious
conversion. He began to observe the Sabbath by absenting
himself from work from sunset on Friday to sunset on Sat-
urday, and this conflicted with his work schedule. The
problem was solved for a time when Hardison, who worked
in Building 1, switched to the night shift, but it resurfaced
when he sought and obtained a transfer to the day shift in
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 7
Opinion of the Court
Building 2 so that he could spend evenings with his wife.
375 F. Supp., at 889. In that new building, he did not have
enough seniority to avoid work during his Sabbath. At-
tempts at accommodation failed, and he was eventually
“discharged on grounds of insubordination.” 432 U. S., at
69.
Hardison sued TWA and his union, the International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).5 The
Eighth Circuit found that reasonable accommodations were
available, and it rejected the defendants’ Establishment
Clause arguments. Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
527 F. 2d 33, 42–44 (1975).
Both TWA and IAM then filed petitions for certiorari,
with TWA’s lead petition asking this Court to decide
whether the 1972 amendment of Title VII violated the Es-
tablishment Clause as applied in the decision below, partic-
ularly insofar as that decision had approved an accommo-
dation that allegedly overrode seniority rights granted by
the relevant collective bargaining agreement.6 The Court
granted both petitions. 429 U. S. 958 (1976).
When the Court took that action, all counsel had good
reason to expect that the Establishment Clause would fig-
ure prominently in the Court’s analysis. As noted above, in
June 1971, the Court, by an equally divided vote, had af-
firmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Dewey, which had
heavily relied on Establishment Clause avoidance to reject
the interpretation of Title VII set out in the EEOC’s reason-
able-accommodation guidelines. Just over three weeks
later, the Court had handed down its (now abrogated)7 de-
cision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) which
——————
5 “Labor organization[s]” themselves were and are bound by Title VII’s
nondiscrimination rules. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(c) (1964 ed.).
6 See Pet. for Cert. in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, O. T.
1975, No. 75–1126, pp. 2–3, 17–22.
7 See Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip
op., at 22).
8 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
adopted a test under which any law whose “principal or pri-
mary effect” “was to advance religion” was unconstitu-
tional. Id., at 612–613. Because it could be argued that
granting a special accommodation to a religious practice
had just such a purpose and effect, some thought that
Lemon posed a serious problem for the 1972 amendment of
Title VII. And shortly before review was granted in Hardi-
son, the Court had announced that the Justices were evenly
divided in a case that challenged the 1972 amendment as a
violation of the Establishment Clause. Parker Seal Co. v.
Cummins, 429 U. S. 65 (1976) (per curiam).
Against this backdrop, both TWA and IAM challenged
the constitutionality of requiring any accommodation for re-
ligious practice. The Summary of Argument in TWA’s brief
began with this categorical assertion: “The religious accom-
modation requirement of Title VII violates the Establish-
ment Clause of the First Amendment.” Brief for Petitioner
TWA in O. T. 1976, No. 75–1126, p. 19. Applying the three-
part Lemon test, TWA argued that any such accommoda-
tion has the primary purpose and effect of advancing reli-
gion and entails “pervasive” government “entanglement . . .
in religious issues.” Brief for Petitioner TWA in No. 75–
1126, at 20. The union’s brief made a similar argument,
Brief for Petitioner IAM, O. T. 1976, No. 75–1126, pp. 21–
24, 50–72, but stressed the special status of seniority rights
under Title VII, id., at 24–36.
Despite the prominence of the Establishment Clause in
the briefs submitted by the parties and their amici,8 consti-
tutional concerns played no on-stage role in the Court’s
opinion, which focused instead on seniority rights.9 The
——————
8 See, e.g., Brief for Chrysler Corporation as Amicus Curiae 6–20 (ar-
guing an Establishment Clause violation), and Brief for State of Michi-
gan as Amicus Curiae 20–25 (arguing no conflict with the Establishment
Clause), in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, O. T. 1976, No. 75–
1126 etc.
9 The background summarized above and the patent clash between the
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 9
Opinion of the Court
opinion stated that “the principal issue on which TWA and
the union came to this Court” was whether Title VII “re-
quire[s] an employer and a union who have agreed on a sen-
iority system to deprive senior employees of their seniority
rights in order to accommodate a junior employee’s reli-
gious practices.” 432 U. S., at 83, and n. 14. The Court held
that Title VII imposed no such requirement. Ibid. This
conclusion, the Court found, was “supported by the fact that
seniority systems are afforded special treatment under Ti-
tle VII itself.” Id., at 81. It noted that Title VII expressly
provides special protection for “ ‘bona fide seniority . . . sys-
tem[s],’” id., at 81–82 (quoting 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(h)), and
it cited precedent reading the statute “ ‘to make clear that
——————
ordinary meaning of “undue hardship” and “more than . . . de minimis”
led some to interpret the decision to rest on Establishment Clause con-
cerns. Justice Marshall observed in his Hardison dissent that the ma-
jority opinion “ha[d] the singular advantage of making consideration of
petitioners’ constitutional challenge unnecessary.” 432 U. S., at 89. A
few courts assumed that Hardison actually was an Establishment
Clause decision. See, e.g., Gibson v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 620 F. Supp.
85, 88–89 (ED Ark. 1985) (concluding that requiring an employer to “in-
cur greater than de minimis costs” related to accommodating a Sabbath
“would therefore violate the establishment clause”); see also Massachu-
setts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimina-
tion, 450 Mass. 327, 340–341, and n. 15, 879 N. E. 2d 36, 46–48, and n.15
(2008) (construing state law narrowly on premise that Hardison might
state outer constitutional bounds). Some constitutional scholars also
suggested that Hardison must have been based on constitutional avoid-
ance. See, e.g., P. Karlan & G. Rutherglen, Disabilities, Discrimination,
and Reasonable Accommodation, 46 Duke L. J. 1, 6–7 (1996); M.
McConnell, Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to
the Critics, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 685, 704 (1992); cf. Small v. Memphis
Light, Gas & Water, 952 F. 3d 821, 829 (CA6 2020) (Thapar, J., concur-
ring). In doing so, some have pointed to Hardison’s passing reference to
a need to avoid “unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their
religion.” 432 U. S., at 84. But the Court later clarified that “Title VII
does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices” but
instead “gives them favored treatment” in order to ensure religious per-
sons’ full participation in the workforce. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., 575 U. S. 768, 775 (2015).
10 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
the routine application of a bona fide seniority system [is]
not . . . unlawful under Title VII.’ ” 432 U. S., at 82 (quoting
Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 352 (1977)). In-
voking these authorities, the Court found that the statute
did not require an accommodation that involuntarily de-
prived employees of seniority rights. 432 U. S., at 80.10
Applying this interpretation of Title VII and disagreeing
with the Eighth Circuit’s evaluation of the factual record,
the Court identified no way in which TWA, without violat-
ing seniority rights, could have feasibly accommodated
Hardison’s request for an exemption from work on his Sab-
bath. The Court found that not enough co-workers were
willing to take Hardison’s shift voluntarily, that compelling
them to do so would have violated their seniority rights, and
that leaving the Stores Department short-handed would
have adversely affected its “essential” mission. Id., at 68,
80.
The Court also rejected two other options offered in Jus-
tice Marshall’s dissent: (1) paying other workers overtime
wages to induce them to work on Saturdays and making up
for that increased cost by requiring Hardison to work over-
time for regular wages at other times and (2) forcing TWA
to pay overtime for Saturday work for three months, after
which, the dissent thought, Hardison could transfer back to
the night shift in Building 1. The Court dismissed both of
these options as not “feasible,” id., at 83, n. 14, but it pro-
vided no explanation for its evaluation of the first. In dis-
sent, Justice Marshall suggested one possible reason: that
the collective bargaining agreement might have disallowed
Hardison’s working overtime for regular wages. Id., at 95(dissenting opinion). But the majority did not embrace that
explanation.
——————
10 We do not understand Groff to challenge the continued vitality of
Hardison’s core holding on its “principal issue” (bracketing his disputes
that the memorandum of understanding set forth a seniority system).
432 U. S., at 83, and n. 14.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 11
Opinion of the Court
As for the second, the Court disputed the dissent’s con-
clusion that Hardison, if he moved back to Building 1,
would have had enough seniority to choose to work the
night shift. Id., at 83, n. 14. That latter disagreement was
key. The dissent thought that Hardison could have re-
sumed the night shift in Building 1 after just three months,
and it therefore calculated what it would have cost TWA to
pay other workers’ overtime wages on Saturdays for that
finite period of time. According to that calculation, TWA’s
added expense for three months would have been $150
(about $1,250 in 2022 dollars).11 Id., at 92, n. 6. But the
Court doubted that Hardison could have regained the sen-
iority rights he had enjoyed in Building 1 prior to his trans-
fer, and if that were true, TWA would have been required
to pay other workers overtime for Saturday work indefi-
nitely. Even under Justice Marshall’s math, that would
have worked out to $600 per year at the time, or roughly
$5,000 per year today.
In the briefs and at argument, little space was devoted to
the question of determining when increased costs amount
to an “undue hardship” under the statute, but a single, but
oft-quoted, sentence in the opinion of the Court, if taken lit-
erally, suggested that even a pittance might be too much for
an employer to be forced to endure. The line read as follows:
“To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in
order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.”
Id., at 84.
Although this line would later be viewed by many lower
courts as the authoritative interpretation of the statutory
term “undue hardship,” it is doubtful that it was meant to
take on that large role. In responding to Justice Marshall’s
dissent, the Court described the governing standard quite
——————
11 The dissent appears to have drawn its estimate from Hardison’s
daily rate at the time of termination ($3.37/hour) and deposition testi-
mony on typical overtime rates and shift lengths. See App. in No. 75–
1126 etc., at pp. 40, 126.
12 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
differently, stating three times that an accommodation is
not required when it entails “substantial” “costs” or “ex-
penditures.” Id., at 83, n. 14. This formulation suggests
that an employer may be required to bear costs and make
expenditures that are not “substantial.” Of course, there is
a big difference between costs and expenditures that are not
“substantial” and those that are “de minimis,” which is to
say, so “very small or trifling” that that they are not even
worth noticing. Black’s Law Dictionary 388 (5th ed. 1979).
The Court’s response to Justice Marshall’s estimate of the
extra costs that TWA would have been required to foot is
also telling. The majority did not argue that Justice Mar-
shall’s math produced considerably “more than a de mini-
mis cost” (as it certainly did). Instead, the Court responded
that Justice Marshall’s calculation involved assumptions
that were not “feasible under the circumstances” and would
have produced a different conflict with “the seniority rights
of other employees.” 432 U. S., at 83, n. 14; see Brief for
United States 29, n. 4 (noting that Hardison “specifically
rejected” the dissent’s calculations and that it is “wrong to
assert” that Hardison held that a $150 cost was an undue
hardship).
Ultimately, then, it is not clear that any of the possible
accommodations would have actually solved Hardison’s
problem without transgressing seniority rights. The Har-
dison Court was very clear that those rights were off-limits.
Its guidance on “undue hardship” in situations not involv-
ing seniority rights is much less clear.
C
Even though Hardison’s reference to “de minimis” was
undercut by conflicting language and was fleeting in com-
parison to its discussion of the “principal issue” of seniority
rights, lower courts have latched on to “de minimis” as the
governing standard.
To be sure, as the Solicitor General notes, some lower
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 13
Opinion of the Court
courts have understood that the protection for religious ad-
herents is greater than “more than . . . de minimis” might
suggest when read in isolation. But a bevy of diverse reli-
gious organizations has told this Court that the de minimis
test has blessed the denial of even minor accommodation in
many cases, making it harder for members of minority
faiths to enter the job market. See, e.g., Brief for The Sikh
Coalition et al. as Amici Curiae 15, 19–20 (“the de minimis
standard eliminates any meaningful mandate to accommo-
date Sikh practices in the workplace” and “emboldens em-
ployers to deny reasonable accommodation requests”); Brief
for Council on American-Islamic Relations as Amicus Cu-
riae 3 (Muslim women wearing religiously mandated attire
“have lost employment opportunities” and have been ex-
cluded from “critical public institutions like public schools,
law enforcement agencies, and youth rehabilitation cen-
ters”); Brief for Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of
America as Amicus Curiae 14–15 (because the “de minimis
cost” test “can be satisfied in nearly any circumstance,” “Or-
thodox Jews once again [are] left at the mercy of their em-
ployers’ good graces”); Brief for Seventh-day Adventist
Church in Canada et al. as Amici Curiae 8 (joint brief of
Sabbatarian faiths arguing that Sabbath accommodation
under the de minimis standard is left to “their employers’
and coworkers’ goodwill”).
The EEOC has also accepted Hardison as prescribing a
“ ‘more than a de minimis cost’ ” test, 29 CFR §1605.2(e)(1)
(2022), but has tried in some ways to soften its impact. It
has specifically cautioned (as has the Solicitor General in
this case) against extending the phrase to cover such things
as the “administrative costs” involved in reworking sched-
ules, the “infrequent” or temporary “payment of premium
wages for a substitute,” and “voluntary substitutes and
swaps” when they are not contrary to a “bona fide seniority
system.” §§1605.2(e)(1), (2).
Nevertheless, some courts have rejected even the EEOC’s
14 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
gloss on “de minimis.”12 And in other cases, courts have re-
jected accommodations that the EEOC’s guidelines con-
sider to be ordinarily required, such as the relaxation of
dress codes and coverage for occasional absences.13
Members of this Court have warned that, if the de mini-
mis rule represents the holding of Hardison, the decision
might have to be reconsidered. Small v. Memphis Light,
Gas & Water, 593 U. S. ___ (2021) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari); Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 589
U. S. ___ (2020) (ALITO, J., concurring in denial of certio-
rari). Four years ago, the Solicitor General—joined on its
brief by the EEOC—likewise took that view. Brief for
United States as Amicus Curiae in Patterson v. Walgreen
Co., O. T. 2019, No. 18–349, p. 20 (“Contrary to Hardison,
therefore, an ‘undue hardship’ is not best interpreted to
mean ‘more than a de minimis cost’ ”).
Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position
that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the under-
standing that Hardison does not compel courts to read the
——————
12 For example, two years ago, the Seventh Circuit told the EEOC that
it would be an undue hardship on Wal-Mart (the Nation’s largest private
employer, with annual profits of over $11 billion) to be required to facili-
tate voluntary shift-trading to accommodate a prospective assistant
manager’s observance of the Sabbath. EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.
P., 992 F. 3d 656, 659–660 (2021). See Walmart Inc., Wall Street Journal
Markets (June 4, 2023).
13 See, e.g., Wagner v. Saint Joseph’s/Candler Health System, Inc.,
2022 WL 905551, *4–*5 (SD Ga., Mar. 28, 2022) (Orthodox Jew fired for
taking off for High Holy Days); Camara v. Epps Air Serv., Inc., 292 F.
Supp. 3d 1314, 1322, 1331–1332 (ND Ga., 2017) (Muslim woman who
wore a hijab fired because the sight of her might harm the business in
light of “negative stereotypes and perceptions about Muslims”); El-Amin
v. First Transit, Inc., 2005 WL 1118175, *7–*8 (SD Ohio, May 11, 2005)
(Muslim employee terminated where religious services conflicted with
“two hours” of training a week during a month of daily training); EEOC
v. Sambo’s of Ga., Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86, 91 (ND Ga., 1981) (hiring a Sikh
man as a restaurant manager would be an undue hardship because his
beard would have conflicted with “customer preference”).
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 15
Opinion of the Court
“more than de minimis” standard “literally” or in a manner
that undermines Hardison’s references to “substantial”
cost.14 Tr. of Oral Arg. 107. With the benefit of comprehen-
sive briefing and oral argument, we agree.15
III
We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as
that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to
establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison can-
not be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an em-
ployer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred re-
peatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation
better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties,
understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is
shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context
——————
14 At the certiorari stage, the Government argued against review by
noting that Government employees receive “at least as much protection
for religious-accommodation claims [under the Religious Freedom Resto-
ration Act (RFRA)] as [under] any interpretation of Title VII.” Brief in
Opposition 9. Courts have not always agreed on how RFRA’s cause of
action—which does not rely on employment status—interacts with Title
VII’s cause of action, and the Third Circuit has treated Title VII as ex-
clusively governing at least some employment-related claims brought by
Government employees. Compare Francis v. Mineta, 505 F. 3d 266, 271
(CA3 2007), with Tagore v. United States, 735 F. 3d 324, 330–331 (CA5
2013) (federal employee’s RFRA claim could proceed even though de min-
imis standard foreclosed Title VII claim). Because Groff did not bring a
RFRA claim, we need not resolve today whether the Government is cor-
rect that RFRA claims arising out of federal employment are not dis-
placed by Title VII.
15 In addition to suggesting that Hardison be revisited, some Justices
have questioned whether Hardison (which addresses the pre-1972 EEOC
Guidelines) binds courts interpreting the current version of Title VII.
See Abercrombie, 575 U. S., at 787, n. (THOMAS, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part). As explained below, because we—like the Solic-
itor General—construe Hardison as consistent with the ordinary mean-
ing of “undue hardship,” we need not reconcile any divergence between
Hardison and the statutory text.
16 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
of an employer’s business. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61–62 (ar-
gument of Solicitor General). This fact-specific inquiry
comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue
hardship” in ordinary speech.
A
As we have explained, we do not write on a blank slate in
determining what an employer must prove to defend a de-
nial of a religious accommodation, but we think it reasona-
ble to begin with Title VII’s text. After all, as we have
stressed over and over again in recent years, statutory in-
terpretation must “begi[n] with,” and ultimately heed, what
a statute actually says. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Depart-
ment of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 15)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see Bartenwerfer v.
Buckley, 598 U. S. 69, 74 (2023); Intel Corp. Investment Pol-
icy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U. S. ___, ___–___, ___ (2020)
(slip op., at 5–6, 9). Here, the key statutory term is “undue
hardship.” In common parlance, a “hardship” is, at a mini-
mum, “something hard to bear.” Random House Dictionary
of the English Language 646 (1966) (Random House).
Other definitions go further. See, e.g., Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 1033 (1971) (Webster’s Third)
(“something that causes or entails suffering or privation”);
American Heritage Dictionary 601 (1969) (American Herit-
age) (“[e]xtreme privation; adversity; suffering”); Black’s
Law Dictionary, at 646 (“privation, suffering, adversity”).
But under any definition, a hardship is more severe than a
mere burden. So even if Title VII said only that an em-
ployer need not be made to suffer a “hardship,” an employer
could not escape liability simply by showing that an accom-
modation would impose some sort of additional costs. Those
costs would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding
the modifier “undue” means that the requisite burden, pri-
vation, or adversity must rise to an “excessive” or “unjusti-
fiable” level. Random House 1547; see, e.g., Webster’s Third
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 17
Opinion of the Court
2492 (“inappropriate,” “unsuited,” or “exceeding or violating
propriety or fitness”); American Heritage 1398 (“exces-
sive”). The Government agrees, noting that “ ‘undue hard-
ship means something greater than hardship.’ ” Brief for
United States 30; see id., at 39 (arguing that “accommoda-
tions should be assessed while ‘keep[ing] in mind both
words in the key phrase of the actual statutory text: “un-
due” and “hardship” ’ ” (quoting Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweet-
eners, LLC, 721 F. 3d 444, 456 (CA7 2013)).
When “undue hardship” is understood in this way, it
means something very different from a burden that is
merely more than de minimis, i.e., something that is “very
small or trifling.” Black’s Law Dictionary, at 388. So con-
sidering ordinary meaning while taking Hardison as a
given, we are pointed toward something closer to Hardi-
son’s references to “substantial additional costs” or “sub-
stantial expenditures.” 432 U. S., at 83, n. 14.
Similarly, while we do not rely on the pre-1972 EEOC de-
cisions described above to define the term, we do observe
that these decisions often found that accommodations that
entailed substantial costs were required. See supra, at 5,
nn. 3–4. Nothing in this history plausibly suggests that
“undue hardship” in Title VII should be read to mean any-
thing less than its meaning in ordinary use. Cf. George v.
McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5) (a “ro-
bust regulatory backdrop” can “fil[l] in the details” of a stat-
utory scheme’s use of a specific term).
In short, no factor discussed by the parties—the ordinary
meaning of “undue hardship,” the EEOC guidelines that
Hardison concluded that the 1972 amendment “ ‘ratified,’ ”
432 U. S., at 76, n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted),
the use of that term by the EEOC prior to those amend-
ments, and the common use of that term in other statutes—
supports reducing Hardison to its “more than a de minimis
cost” line. See Brief for United States 39 (arguing that “the
Court could emphasize that Hardison’s language does not
18 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
displace the statutory standard”).
B
In this case, both parties agree that the “de minimis” test
is not right, but they differ slightly in the alternative lan-
guage they prefer. Groff likes the phrase “significant diffi-
culty or expense.” Brief for Petitioner 15; Reply Brief 2.
The Government, disavowing its prior position that Title
VII’s text requires overruling Hardison, points us to Hardi-
son’s repeated references to “substantial expenditures” or
“substantial additional costs.” Brief for United States 28–
29 (citing 432 U. S., at 83–84, and n. 14); see Brief for
United States 39. We think it is enough to say that an em-
ployer must show that the burden of granting an accommo-
dation would result in substantial increased costs in rela-
tion to the conduct of its particular business. Hardison, 432
U. S., at 83, n. 14.
What matters more than a favored synonym for “undue
hardship” (which is the actual text) is that courts must ap-
ply the test in a manner that takes into account all relevant
factors in the case at hand, including the particular accom-
modations at issue and their practical impact in light of the
nature, “size and operating cost of [an] employer.” Brief for
United States 40 (internal quotation marks omitted).
C
The main difference between the parties lies in the fur-
ther steps they would ask us to take in elaborating upon
their standards. Groff would not simply borrow the phrase
“significant difficulty or expense” from the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) but would have us instruct lower
courts to “draw upon decades of ADA caselaw.” Reply Brief
13. The Government, on the other hand, requests that we
opine that the EEOC’s construction of Hardison has been
basically correct. Brief for United States 39.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 19
Opinion of the Court
Both of these suggestions go too far. We have no reserva-
tions in saying that a good deal of the EEOC’s guidance in
this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected
by our clarifying decision today. After all, as a public advo-
cate for employee rights, much of the EEOC’s guidance has
focused on what should be accommodated. Accordingly, to-
day’s clarification may prompt little, if any, change in the
agency’s guidance explaining why no undue hardship is im-
posed by temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occa-
sional shift swapping, or administrative costs. See 29 CFR
§1605.2(d). But it would not be prudent to ratify in toto a
body of EEOC interpretation that has not had the benefit of
the clarification we adopt today. What is most important is
that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and
courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substan-
tial in the context of an employer’s business in the common-
sense manner that it would use in applying any such test.
D
The erroneous de minimis interpretation of Hardison
may have had the effect of leading courts to pay insufficient
attention to what the actual text of Title VII means with
regard to several recurring issues. Since we are now brush-
ing away that mistaken view of Hardison’s holding, clarifi-
cation of some of those issues—in line with the parties’
agreement in this case—is in order.
First, on the second question presented, both parties
agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment
of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the
employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j); see 35 F. 4th,
at 177–178 (Hardiman, J., dissenting). As the Solicitor
General put it, not all “impacts on coworkers . . . are rele-
vant,” but only “coworker impacts” that go on to “affec[t] the
conduct of the business.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 102–104. So an
accommodation’s effect on co-workers may have ramifica-
tions for the conduct of the employer’s business, but a court
20 GROFF v. DEJOY
Opinion of the Court
cannot stop its analysis without examining whether that
further logical step is shown in a particular case.
On this point, the Solicitor General took pains to clarify
that some evidence that occasionally is used to show “im-
pacts” on coworkers is “off the table” for consideration. Id.,
at 102. Specifically, a coworker’s dislike of “religious prac-
tice and expression in the workplace” or “the mere fact [of]
an accommodation” is not “cognizable to factor into the un-
due 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 pro-
vided 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 aver-
sion to, or discomfort in dealing with, bearded people”).
Second, as the Solicitor General’s authorities underscore,
Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommo-
date an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it
assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommo-
dation or accommodations. See Adeyeye, 721 F. 3d, at 455;
see also Brief for United States 30, 33, 39. This distinction
matters. Faced with an accommodation request like
Groff ’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude
that forcing other employees to work overtime would con-
stitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options,
such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 21
Opinion of the Court
IV
Having clarified the Title VII undue-hardship standard,
we think it appropriate to leave the context-specific appli-
cation of that clarified standard to the lower courts in the
first instance. The Third Circuit assumed that Hardison
prescribed a “more than a de minimis cost” test, 35 F. 4th,
at 175, and this may have led the court to dismiss a number
of possible accommodations, including those involving the
cost of incentive pay, or the administrative costs of coordi-
nation with other nearby stations with a broader set of em-
ployees. Without foreclosing the possibility that USPS will
prevail, we think it appropriate to leave it to the lower
courts to apply our clarified context-specific standard, and
to decide whether any further factual development is
needed.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 22–174
_________________
GERALD E. GROFF, PETITIONER v.
LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[June 29, 2023]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,
concurring.
As both parties here agree, the phrase “more than a de
minimis cost” from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,
432 U. S. 63, 84 (1977), was loose language. An employer
violates Title VII if it fails “to reasonably accommodate” an
employee’s religious observance or practice, unless the em-
ployer demonstrates that accommodation would result in
“undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). The statutory standard is “undue
hardship,” not trivial cost.
Hardison, however, cannot be reduced to its “de minimis”
language. Instead, that case must be understood in light of
its facts and the Court’s reasoning. The Hardison Court
concluded that the plaintiff ’s proposed accommodation
would have imposed an undue hardship on the conduct of
the employer’s business because the accommodation would
have required the employer either to deprive other employ-
ees of their seniority rights under a collective-bargaining
agreement, or to incur substantial additional costs in the
form of lost efficiency or higher wages. 432 U. S., at 79–81,
83–84, and n. 14. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission has interpreted Title VII’s undue-hardship
standard in this way for seven consecutive Presidential ad-
ministrations, from President Reagan to President Biden.
2 GROFF v. DEJOY
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
See 29 CFR §1605.2(e) (2022) (citing Hardison, 432 U. S.,
at 80, 84).
Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Har-
dison and to replace it with a “significant difficulty or ex-
pense” standard. Brief for Petitioner 17–38. The Court
does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis
has “enhanced force” in statutory cases. Kimble v. Marvel
Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 456 (2015). Congress is
free to revise this Court’s statutory interpretations. The
Court’s respect for Congress’s decision not to intervene pro-
motes the separation of powers by requiring interested par-
ties to resort to the legislative rather than the judicial pro-
cess to achieve their policy goals. This justification for
statutory stare decisis is especially strong here because
“Congress has spurned multiple opportunities to reverse
[Hardison]—openings as frequent and clear as this Court
ever sees.” Id., at 456–457.1 Moreover, in the decades since
Hardison was decided, Congress has revised Title VII mul-
tiple times in response to other decisions of this Court,2 yet
never in response to Hardison. See Kimble, 576 U. S., at
457.
——————
1 See, e.g., H. R. 1440, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., §4(a)(4) (2021); H. R.
5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §4(a)(4) (2019); S. 3686, 112th Cong., 2d
Sess., §4(a)(3) (2012); S. 4046, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §4(a)(3) (2010);
S. 3628, 110th Cong., 2d Sess., §2(a)(1)(B) (2008); H. R. 1431, 110th
Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (2007); H. R. 1445, 109th Cong., 1st Sess.,
§2(a)(4) (2005); S. 677, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (2005); S. 893,
108th Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (2003); S. 2572, 107th Cong., 2d Sess.,
§2(a)(4) (2002); H. R. 4237, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., §2(a)(4) (2000);
S. 1668, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (1999); H. R. 2948, 105th Cong.,
1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (1997); S. 1124, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(4) (1997);
S. 92, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., §2(a)(3) (1997); H. R. 4117, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess., §2(a)(3) (1996).
2 See Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 (overruling Wards Cove
Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642 (1989)); Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
of 2009, 123 Stat. 5 (overruling Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
550 U. S. 618 (2007)).
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Groff also asks the Court to decide that Title VII requires
the United States Postal Service to show “undue hardship
to [its] business,” not to Groff ’s co-workers. Brief for Peti-
tioner 42 (emphasis added); see 35 F. 4th 162, 176 (CA3
2022) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). The Court, however, rec-
ognizes that Title VII requires “undue hardship on the con-
duct of the employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j) (em-
phasis added). Because the “conduct of [a] business” plainly
includes the management and performance of the busi-
ness’s employees, undue hardship on the conduct of a busi-
ness may include undue hardship on the business’s employ-
ees. See, e.g., Hardison, 432 U. S., at 79–81 (deprivation of
employees’ bargained-for seniority rights constitutes undue
hardship). There is no basis in the text of the statute, let
alone in economics or common sense, to conclude otherwise.
Indeed, for many businesses, labor is more important to the
conduct of the business than any other factor.
To be sure, some effects on co-workers will not constitute
“undue hardship” under Title VII. For example, animus to-
ward a protected group is not a cognizable “hardship” under
any antidiscrimination statute. Cf. ante, at 20. In addition,
some hardships, such as the labor costs of coordinating vol-
untary shift swaps, are not “undue” because they are too
insubstantial. See 29 CFR §§1605.2(d)(1)(i), (e)(1). Never-
theless, if there is an undue hardship on “the conduct of the
employer’s business,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j), then such hard-
ship is sufficient, even if it consists of hardship on employ-
ees. With these observations, I join the opinion of the
Court.