As New Religious Accommodation Test Hits the Courts, Employers Face Higher Bar to Prove Undue Hardship

The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy transformed how courts and regulators look at religious accommodation requests. The ruling replaced the 50-year standard with a new requirement: employers can deny an accommodation only when they can show substantial increased costs to business operations.

Since the ruling, the EEOC reported a sharp rise in religious discrimination charges. And 2025 saw a near‑decade high in religious bias claims. Employers should take a fresh look at their policies, update training and make sure they have a solid process for reviewing and documenting requests to reduce risk as these trends continue.

How are post-Groff rulings changing employer responsibilities?

Employers face a higher threshold for undue hardship.

Groff rejected the longstanding Hardison standard and held that undue hardship requires more than minor cost or inconvenience. Employers must now show that granting a religious accommodation would create a significant burden tied to the conduct of their business, supported by specific facts or data.

This includes quantifiable costs, operational impacts, safety requirements and regulatory obligations. Courts have repeatedly rejected hypothetical concerns or untested assumptions.

Employers must provide evidence, not speculation.

Under Groff, the burden lies squarely on the employer. Courts are requiring documentation that demonstrates actual costs or concrete risk. Examples include:

• • Overtime projections
  • Regulatory compliance constraints
  • Safety analyses
  • Staffing models or coverage mapping
  • Vendor input on equipment limitations

Claims of workplace disruption, morale issues or theoretical risks no longer satisfy the standard without supporting evidence.

Co-worker impacts only count if they’re tied to business operations.

Courts have narrowed the relevance of co-worker impact. Several recent rulings held that personality conflicts, resentment or perceived unfairness were not valid reasons to deny these requests. Only impacts that directly affect business operations can justify an undue hardship finding. For example, a schedule change that leaves the employer below minimum staffing thresholds or violates a seniority system impacts other workers in a way that affects the company’s ability to operate.

Every request requires an individualized assessment.

The new standard reinforces the need for a fact‑specific inquiry. Employers should evaluate each request on its own merits, including:

• • Availability of alternatives
  • Operational realities
  • The nature of the employee’s duties
  • The size and structure of the organization

Larger employers may have greater flexibility, which means they face a higher burden to show hardship.

What steps can employers take now to meet the new standard?

• • Update accommodation policies to reflect the substantial‑cost standard.
  • Train HR and managers on the heightened burden and documentation expectations, and show them how to recognize religious accommodation requests, even when employees don’t use legal terms.
  • Use structured evaluation tools for time‑off requests, dress and grooming modifications, prayer breaks, vaccination accommodations and schedule swaps.
  • Review existing denials issued under the lower Hardison threshold, particularly if the matter remains open or under EEOC review.

How can employers put this into practice?

When employers receive a request, these guidelines can help them build a process to address the request and comply with the new standard.

1. Assess the request.

• • Confirm you understand the employee’s belief and the specific conflict.
  • Assume sincerity unless objective evidence indicates otherwise.
  • Document the employee’s explanation in writing.

2. Conduct an interactive process with the employee.

• • Schedule a timely discussion with the employee.
  • Explore all feasible alternatives, not just the employee’s preferred option.
  • Document every alternative discussed.

3. Evaluate undue hardship.

• • Identify concrete costs tied directly to the requested accommodation.
  • Quantify potential overtime, schedule gaps or productivity impacts.
  • Assess safety issues using validated analysis or vendor data.
  • Verify regulatory requirements that may limit options.
  • Document why each hardship is substantial in the context of your operations.

• • Document a genuine, individualized review of the request. Avoid applying a blanket rule or past practice.
  • Determine whether a larger unit, department or location in your organization could absorb this accommodation with less disruption.

4. Consider co-worker impacts.

• • Determine whether co-worker impacts directly affect business operations.
  • Exclude concerns related to morale, resentment or preference.

5. Make and document the decision.

• • Provide the decision in writing.
  • Document alternatives offered and the rationale for any denial, clearly stating how the hardship causes concrete disruption to operations.
  • Avoid generalized statements or hypothetical risks.

Groff raises the standard employers must meet before denying a religious accommodation. Employers that adopt a consistent, evidence‑driven approach and maintain thorough documentation will be better prepared to meet rising enforcement expectations.

Contact Helen Jay or any member of the Phelps labor and employment team if you have questions or need advice or guidance.