Womble Employment Law Blog

Employers will now have to show a higher degree of hardship to deny employee requests for religious accommodation. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1), employers are required to grant employee requests for religious accommodation “unless the employer demonstrates that [the requested] accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.” On July 29, 2023,  the United States Supreme Court unanimously clarified  in  Groff v. DeJoy  that a religious accommodation only results in “undue hardship” when “the burden of granting [the] accommodation would result in  substantial  increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”  The “substantial increased cost” standard is a departure from the lower “more than a  de minimis  cost” standard that has prevailed since 1975. For the last 48 years, employers could deny religious accommodations for causing “undue hardship” ...

A federal court in North Carolina has ruled that a jury trial will be held in a case brought by the EEOC challenging a hospital's mandatory flu shot policy.  The case was filed in 2016 by the EEOC for a group of terminated employees who failed to request a religious exemption by a certain deadline and did not get the required flu shot.  On August 7, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruled that it could not dismiss the case at summary judgment without a trial, concluding that a jury would be needed to decide whether workers who did not request a religious exemption to the policy were treated more favorably. The mandatory flu shot policy required that workers obtain a flu shot by December 1.  However, to accommodate sincere religious beliefs, the policy also allowed workers who had objections to receiving a flu shot on religious grounds to request an exemption under the policy.  The po...

The EEOC announced that it has settled a religious accommodation lawsuit against a beer distributor which insisted that a prospective employee cut his hair if wanted a job.  The prospective employee asserted that he was a practicing Rastafarian, and in accordance with his beliefs, was forbidden to cut his hair.  After being denied the job with the North Carolina company, he filed an EEOC charge, which ultimately resulted in the EEOC filing a lawsuit. In January, the EEOC announced that the parties had reached a settlement.  According to the EEOC, the company agreed to pay $50,000 and change its policies.  The EEOC announcement can be found here . 

Religious discrimination continues to be a hot topic for employers.  As savvy HR professionals know, an important religious discrimination  case will be heard in the United States Supreme Court this term involving the EEOC's suit against a company over the duty to make accommodations to dress and appearance policies.  On January 13, 2015, the EEOC announced that it has filed a new religious discrimination suit against Triangle Catering, LLC in the Eastern District of North Carolina.  The EEOC's complaint alleges that the company employed a Rastafarian, who wore a small cap as part of his religious practices.  When the employee refused to remove the cap while working, the complaint claims the employee was fired.  While we watch these cases play out this year, these EEOC enforcement actions underscore the value of businesses taking the time to review their policies--and their practices--on the accommodation of religious beliefs and ...