The union argued that days off, especially weekends, are important for parents and families of all beliefs, not just religious adherents.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the simplistic “de minimis” test that had guided religious accommodation cases for decades.
While the Court did not completely overturn the 1977 Hardison precedent, it clarified that mere minimal costs or minor inconveniences do not constitute an undue hardship under Title VII.
Instead, an employer that denies a religious accommodation must show that granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs or other significant burdens relative to the conduct of its business.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by all eight other justices — a remarkable consensus in today’s polarized legal climate.
The Court emphasized that employers must consider reasonable accommodations and cannot rely on the outdated “more than de minimis cost” formulation to justify denial.
The decision requires a deeper, more context‑sensitive analysis of whether accommodating religious practices would truly burden the business.
In clarifying the standard, the Supreme Court explained that effects on coworkers or scheduling disruptions alone do not automatically count as undue hardship unless they translate into substantial burdens on the overall operations of the employer’s business.
Implications for Workers and Employers
Legal analysts have characterized the decision as a significant victory for religious liberty protections in the workplace.
By heightening the burden employers must meet to justify denying religious accommodations, the Supreme Court’s ruling gives employees greater leverage in asserting their rights under Title VII.
Experts say that the decision could have broad implications beyond Sunday scheduling — affecting how employers handle religious dress and grooming requests, observances of holy days, and other workplace practices tied to faith.
It is expected to influence litigation, human resources policies, and employer‑employee negotiations for years to come.
The decision has been welcomed not only by Christian groups but also by organizations representing a wide range of faith traditions, who see it as a corrective to decades of lower‑court decisions that too liberally interpreted Hardison in favor of employers.
What Happened to Groff?
As part of the lower‑court record, it’s worth noting that Groff’s original lawsuit arose after he was disciplined for missing more than two dozen Sunday shifts because of his Sabbath observance.
Those refusals occurred after his USPS office began Sunday deliveries as part of the Amazon contract, and after efforts to find volunteers to cover his shifts often failed.
Eventually, facing disciplinary action, Groff resigned his position.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the USPS’s actions under the old “de minimis” test, finding that exemptions from Sunday work would impose undue hardship by burdening coworkers and disrupting operations.
That ruling was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court in light of the clarified undue hardship standard.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not automatically entitle Groff to a specific accommodation, but it opens the door for his claim to be reconsidered under the correct legal standard that properly reflects Title VII’s protections.
A Broader Legal and Social Context
The Groff v. DeJoy decision fits within a broader trend of the Supreme Court affirming religious liberties in the workplace and public life.
In recent years, the Court has considered and ruled on multiple cases involving conflicts between civil rights laws and religious practices, routinely emphasizing the need to protect individuals’ ability to practice deeply held beliefs without undue interference.
While the decision strengthened employees’ rights to religious accommodation, it also underscored that employers still retain legitimate interests in maintaining workplace operations.
The Supreme Court’s clarified standard — focused on whether an accommodation imposes a substantial burden on the overall business — is designed to strike a balance between those interests and employees’ constitutional and statutory rights.
Looking Ahead: Employer Policies and Legal Challenges
Following the decision, workplace legal experts have urged employers to revisit and revise their policies around religious accommodation requests.
Human resources departments are encouraged to establish clear procedures, encourage open dialogue with employees, and proactively identify potential accommodation solutions before conflicts escalate to litigation.
At the same time, some analysts predict that clarifying the undue hardship standard may lead to more claims as employees become empowered to bring accommodation requests under Title VII — particularly when they believe their practices have previously been overlooked or dismissed under the old de minimis test.
Conclusion: A Landmark Win for Workplace Religious Rights
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy represents a significant reaffirmation of religious freedom in American workplaces.
By clarifying how Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard should be applied, the Court has strengthened protections for workers whose sincerely held religious beliefs require accommodations that conflict with standard job requirements.
While the case began with the personal story of one mail carrier in Pennsylvania, its implications now reach across the nation — touching faith communities, employers, legal professionals, and ordinary workers alike.
At its core, the decision reaffirms a fundamental principle of American law: that employees should not be forced to choose between their deeply held religious convictions and their livelihoods.
