Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
Employment Law Now VII-133 - Hot Summer Employment Law Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Introduces Heightened Standard for Religious Accommodation, Rules Against Affirmative Action, Protects “Expressive” Services - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: The Biden EEOC, New Religious Guidance, and Diversity Training Ban Repealed - Employment Law This Week
On-Demand Webinar | Employment Issues With a COVID-19 Vaccine
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
Knowing several religious holidays are coming up soon, employers can take steps to avoid triggering religious discrimination and reasonable accommodation lawsuits. Consistently applying paid time off rules can help to prevent...more
May 2024 NJ Supreme Court holds that non-disparagement provisions cannot prohibit disclosure of details relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment - The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that...more
Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which clarified the standard for undue hardship in religious accommodation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal district court in Indiana...more
In last term’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly increased employers’ obligation to consider religious exemption requests under Title VII. Rather than the previous de minimus burden standard,...more
Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office? The short answer is: Maybe. You must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral...more
Consider this: an employee refuses to accept Sunday shifts because, under his religion, that day is devoted to worship and rest. Is his employer legally required to accommodate him? For decades, the answer was easy....more
On June 29, 2023, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Groff v. DeJoy Postmaster General, clarifying an employer’s obligations to accommodate employees’ religious practices....more
In the Public Interest is excited to continue our miniseries examining landmark decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. The fourth episode examines the Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, a case centered...more
The U.S Supreme Court issued an opinion in Groff v. DeJoy redefining an employer’s obligations for religious accommodations under Title VII. The Court strayed away from the almost five-decade standard previously used and...more
Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) requires employers to accommodate any employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless accommodation would result in an undue hardship. Historically, denial of...more
The Supreme Court has broadened religious accommodations in a closely watched case, clarifying the Title VII undue hardship standard for employers....more
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month in favor of an evangelical Christian postal worker who refused to work on Sundays due to Sabbath observance....more
In the past 30 days the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that denial of a religious accommodation requires proof of a real “undue hardship,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) sent a letter to the EEOC asking how it intended to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy that effectively made it easier for employees to secure religious-based accommodations in the workplace. Prior to DeJoy, an employer could...more
In a case decided last month, the U.S. Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to deny employees’ requests for accommodations for their religious practices, rejecting the understanding of Title VII (the fundamental...more
The U.S. Supreme Court last month clarified the standard for when an employee’s request for a religious accommodation imposed an “undue hardship” on an employer. Before this most recent decision (Groff v. Dejoy), employers...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which heightened the burden that employers bear in proving that an employee’s request for a religious...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has “clarified” the test under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have relied upon for more than 46 years, making it easier for...more
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment...more
As many employers are likely aware, Title VII makes it illegal for covered employers to discriminate against employees and applicants based on certain protected characteristics, including sincerely held religious beliefs....more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heightened the standard for what qualifies as an “undue hardship” for religious accommodations required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it easier for employees to seek...more
We recently wrote about Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court decision reinterpreting the meaning of “undue hardship” for Title VII religious accommodations to actually mean “undue hardship,” as opposed to minimal costs. In this...more
Employers evaluating religious accommodations under Title VII are now required to strike a new balance due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent clarification of what constitutes an “undue hardship.” Employers should promptly...more
On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the standard employers must apply in considering an employee’s religious accommodation request under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Groff v. DeJoy,...more