Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Groff v. DeJoy, before denying a religious accommodation under Title VII based on the undue hardship it creates, employers must demonstrate that the burden is “substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.” Recent circuit court decisions provide critical insight into how courts are interpreting Groff—and what employers should do to stay compliant.

Key Takeaways from the Courts

1. Smith v. City of Atlantic City (Third Circuit)¹

A firefighter challenged a grooming policy that prohibited beards after he was denied a religious accommodation. While employers may evaluate both economic and non-economic costs when completing an undue hardship analysis, the court found the city failed to show undue hardship with its mere recitation of an interest. Here, the city did not call anyone in the same position as Smith to engage in fire suppression duties (which apparently necessitated the no-beard policy) for several decades. The court found that the city’s claim of a safety interest—without providing specific facts showing more than a speculative risk—was insufficient to demonstrate undue hardship.

Employer lesson: Before denying an accommodation, employers must identify and document specific, objective burdens to demonstrate that providing the accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

2. Hebrew v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Fifth Circuit)²

As in Smith, a correctional officer challenged a grooming policy that prohibited beards after he was denied a religious accommodation and terminated. Because the employer did not identify actual costs it would face and instead only identified “security and safety concerns,” the court found it had not met its burden to prove an undue hardship. Furthermore, the court found that the employer’s reference to additional work for coworkers was vague and the employer had not presented evidence of consideration of other accommodations.

Employer Lesson: Employers must examine alternative accommodations and provide concrete evidence of additional costs.

3. Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (Seventh Circuit)³

A teacher resigned under pressure after refusing to follow a school policy mandating teachers to call transgender students by their chosen names, citing religious objections. The school initially (for over a year) allowed a last-name-only accommodation but later rescinded it after receiving complaints from a handful of students and teachers, as well as one student’s parents. The complaints included claims the last-name-only practice “was making students uncomfortable” and causing “tension” in the performing arts department. The court found that emotional discomfort alone was not sufficient to establish undue hardship under Groff, as it did not objectively rise to the level of undue hardship.

Employer lesson: Employers must demonstrate more than a coworker’s mere subjective discomfort (e.g., emotional injury) with or dislike of a religious practice or expression in order to show an undue hardship. Those injuries must also be objectively reasonable to rise to the level of undue hardship. In fact, a coworker’s mere dislike of a religious practice and expression in the workplace is not relevant and will not be considered in the Seventh Circuit. Per the Kluge decision, “For, any hardship attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered undue” (internal quotations omitted). Considering potential proof of emotional distress, the Kluge Court further noted, “Even if emotional distress qualifies as an undue hardship, Groff requires the employer to prove both that there was a hardship, and that the accommodation caused that hardship. (The ‘employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs’ (emphasis added)).” Employers must keep in mind that this subsection of Title VII is the “sole part of the statute that requires employers to affirmatively bear additional costs to accommodate employees[.]”

Practical Guidance for Employers

These decisions reinforce that Title VII now requires more than minimal inconvenience to deny a religious accommodation. Employers should:

• Audit policies for consistency and neutrality;
• Train managers and HR on the new legal standards;
• Document accommodation decisions, including alternatives considered and objective evidence-based justifications;
• Avoid viewpoint discrimination, particularly in sensitive contexts; and
• Consult legal counsel for high-risk or high-profile accommodation requests.

Bottom Line

The Groff decision has reshaped the legal landscape for religious accommodations. These circuit court rulings show that courts are taking the new standard seriously—and expect employers to do the same. Employers should act now to ensure their policies, practices, and training are aligned with the evolving law.

^{[1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit covers Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[2] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.}

Please contact Paul C. Sweeney or another member of Ice Miller's Workplace Solutions Group if you have any questions.

Special thanks to law clerk Clare Van Prooyen for her contributions to this article. Clare is not yet admitted to practice in any jurisdiction.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.