Emerging Themes In Post-Groff Accommodation Decisions

Law360 published this expert analysis Feb. 20, 2026.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reshaped the legal framework for religious accommodations in the workplace with the seminal decision of Groff v. DeJoy. The court clarified that Title VII's undue hardship standard requires more than a de minimis cost, holding that an employer must demonstrate a substantial burden in light of the nature and context of its business operations.

For employment lawyers advising sophisticated corporate clients, the decision raises the stakes on accommodation requests and demands a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to compliance.

Now, nearly three years out from Groff, a body of lower court decisions, including a decision last month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has begun to reveal how this heightened standard operates in practice — and where the pitfalls lie for unwary employers.

The Old Regime and Its Demise

Prior to Groff, religious accommodations under Title VII were governed by the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which allowed employers to deny accommodations that imposed more than a de minimis cost.

That permissive standard placed religious accommodations on far weaker footing than disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to demonstrate "significant difficulty or expense" to establish undue hardship. For nearly half a century, Hardison provided employers with broad latitude to deny accommodation requests with minimal justification.

Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian who observes Sundays as a day of worship and rest, challenged that framework. He began working for the United States Postal Service in 2012, in a position that did not require Sunday work. In 2013, however, USPS initiated Sunday package deliveries and required employees to work on a rotating basis, placing Groff in an untenable position.

After receiving discipline for refusing Sunday assignments, Groff resigned and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religious practices. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected his claims under the Hardison framework.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. It held that undue hardship means an excessive or unjustifiable burden — not just any minor or trivial cost. As set forth in the decision, to deny a religious accommodation, an employer must now show that granting the request would result in "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."

The court pointedly declined to import the ADA's significant difficulty or expense test wholesale, but acknowledged that Groff moved religious accommodations closer in rigor to disability accommodations.

Emerging Themes in Post-Groff Jurisprudence

As lower courts grapple with the new standard, several themes have crystallized. Courts are demanding quantified cost evidence; generalized claims of inconvenience no longer suffice. Further, safety justifications must be supported by concrete, record‑based evidence rather than speculation.

Employers must also demonstrate that they considered and documented alternative accommodations, including voluntary shift swaps.

The most common post-Groff litigation has involved grooming policies, dress requirements and time off requests. These cases illustrate both how demanding the new standard can be, and the discrete circumstances under which employers can still prevail.

Grooming and Dress Code Cases: A Mixed Record

Grooming policies have generated particularly instructive case law.

In Hebrew v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, a prison guard sought a religious exemption from a beard grooming policy. The employer asserted safety concerns, arguing that employees must be able to wear protective masks during chemical agent deployments, that long hair could be used against an employee during an altercation, and that contraband could be concealed.

In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected all three arguments, noting that the employer "nowhere identifies any actual costs it will face — much less 'substantial increased costs' affecting its entire business," saying the employer instead "simply identifies its security and safety concerns without regard to costs."

The decision underscores that safety assertions, untethered to documented costs or concrete operational impacts, are insufficient to establish undue hardship.

Similarly, in Ellis v. Chronister, a Sunni Muslim officer sought permission to wear a kufi and grow a beard for religious reasons, but the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office denied his request.

In August, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida emphasized that employers must satisfy a heightened standard and conduct a fact‑specific inquiry to establish undue hardship. Critically, it found that the employer failed to demonstrate that it had considered alternative accommodations, such as modifications to its uniform policy.

Yet, safety concerns can still prevail when properly documented. In 2023, in Smith v. City of Atlantic City, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey addressed a firefighter's challenge to a policy requiring firefighters to remain clean-shaven while on duty to ensure a proper seal on self‑contained breathing apparatuses.

Granting summary judgment to the employer, the court found undue hardship, explaining that it was "hard-pressed to imagine a circumstance that would create a greater undue burden — or a higher cost — on a fire department than the potential risk of injury or loss of life." In May, the Third Circuit affirmed in relevant part.

The decision illustrates that when safety risks are concrete and well substantiated, courts will credit an employer's showing of undue hardship.

Time Off and Scheduling: Documentation Is Everything

Scheduling accommodations also present distinct challenges.

In Taylor v. SEPTA, a Muslim employee requested that his random drug tests be scheduled outside daylight hours during Ramadan. In 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found no undue hardship because the timing accommodation was feasible, illustrating that minor scheduling adjustments will rarely meet the heightened standard.

Further, Johnson v. York Academy Regional Charter School offers a cautionary example. In Johnson, a business manager requested a four‑day workweek to observe the Lunar Sabbath, and the school summarily denied the request, citing undue hardship.

In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that the school failed to satisfy the Groff standard, because it relied on generalized claims of difficulty, as opposed to specific evidence of substantial increased costs or operational disruption.

The decision underscores that employers cannot merely assert hardship; they must substantiate it with particularized, record‑based evidence.

Vaccine Mandates: Healthcare's Special Status

Before Groff, perhaps no area generated more anticipation than religious exemptions to vaccine mandates. Many observers predicted that the decision would materially improve employees' prospects for obtaining exemptions. In practice, the results have been more nuanced, particularly in healthcare settings, where patient‑facing employees continue to face significant obstacles at summary judgment.

Courts have consistently identified a close nexus between vaccine mandates and the core mission of healthcare: protecting patient safety. Numerous post‑Groff appellate decisions have found undue hardship where religious exemptions risked violating state vaccine requirements or exposing medically vulnerable patients.

In October, in Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health System Inc., the Fourth Circuit upheld a hospital's denial of a religious exemption to its COVID‑19 vaccine mandate, concluding that the accommodation would increase the risk of outbreaks; drive up costs, including the need for temporary staffing; and endanger patient and staff safety — all sufficient to establish undue hardship under Title VII.

The court further emphasized that the law does not require employers to treat religious and medical exemptions the same.

Most recently, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed that healthcare employers can satisfy Groff's heightened undue hardship standard where an accommodation would create concrete patient safety risks.

On Jan. 6, in Miller v. Charleston Area Medical Center Inc., the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a hospital that denied a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for a respiratory therapist in a patient-facing role.

The court concluded that "the hospital could not accommodate an unvaccinated respiratory therapist without incurring a substantial risk to the health of their employees and patients," and held that "such a risk constituted undue hardship" under Title VII.

EEOC Guidance and Enforcement Trends

The EEOC has taken note of Groff. In its current guidance, the agency explains that Groff clarified that showing "more than a de minimis cost" does not suffice to establish undue hardship under Title VII, and that the decision supersedes older formulations requiring only a minimal burden, in favor of a context‑specific analysis focused on whether the burden is substantial in the overall context of the employer's business.

Moreover, enforcement data reflects a renewed focus on religious discrimination: The EEOC filed 11 religious discrimination lawsuits in fiscal year 2025, even as overall filings fell to a 10‑year low.

Recent EEOC decisions also underscore the agency's post‑Groff approach. In August, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations issued the following two federal sector appellate decisions clarifying employers' obligations to accommodate religious practices in the workplace.

In Augustine V. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, a Muslim physician requested Friday afternoons off to attend mosque prayer, and proposed making up the hours Monday through Thursday. The agency denied the proposed compressed schedule, instead offering either a six‑day workweek or a part‑time position with reduced pay.

The EEOC found both alternatives unreasonable, holding that they "imposed substantial work-related burdens." The commission concluded that the compressed schedule constituted a reasonable accommodation, and that the agency failed to produce any evidence that granting it would have caused undue hardship to its operations.

Similarly, in Andy B. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a law enforcement officer sought a religious exemption from a COVID‑19 vaccine mandate, and the agency denied the request and terminated him within days.

The EEOC found that the agency failed to demonstrate that accommodating the request would impose a substantial hardship under Groff. The record contained no evidence that alternatives, such as masking or testing, were unsafe or unduly costly, and the agency did not engage in a meaningful interactive process or consider alternative accommodations.

Practical Guidance for Employers

The post‑Groff landscape requires employers to adopt a more disciplined and methodical approach to religious accommodation requests. Employers are not obligated to provide the specific accommodation that an employee requests, but once on notice of the need for an accommodation, they must explore whether a reasonable alternative exists.

Before denying any request, employers must be prepared to demonstrate — through concrete, specific evidence — that granting the accommodation would have a substantial negative effect on the business, whether economic or noneconomic.

Importantly, employers cannot rely on the generalized effects on co-workers. Where a denial is based on its effects on co-workers, the employer must show that the accommodation would substantially burden employees in the conduct of the employer's business. This inquiry is inherently fact‑specific and must be supported by documented evidence; co-worker resentment or hostility, standing alone, is not a cognizable hardship.

In practice, this means that employers should quantify overtime costs, staffing constraints, and service‑level impacts when evaluating scheduling or Sabbath requests.

For dress and grooming accommodations, employers should assess alternatives that are compatible with personal protective equipment, and document any safety testing and associated costs.

For vaccination policies, employers must meaningfully consider alternatives — such as masking, testing, reassignment or modified duties — and be prepared to articulate why those alternatives are infeasible or insufficient.

Conclusion

Groff v. DeJoy represented a watershed moment for religious accommodations under Title VII, replacing nearly 50 years of permissive de minimis analysis with a heightened requirement of substantial increased cost.

The decision compels a fundamental shift in employer decision‑making: Accommodation denials must be supported by concrete, quantified evidence of real hardship, not conclusory claims of inconvenience.

As lower courts continue to develop the doctrine and the EEOC intensifies enforcement, employers that commit to rigorous documentation, meaningful engagement with employees and creative alternative accommodations will be best equipped to navigate the post‑Groff landscape.