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#WorkforceWednesday: The Biden EEOC, New Religious Guidance, and Diversity Training Ban Repealed - Employment Law This Week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
The COVID-19 pandemic brought workplace vaccination policies to the forefront, raising complex questions about religious accommodations. Over four years after the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, these policies remain...more
After the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, on January 30 a federal district court denied dueling motions for summary judgment filed by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, the U.S. Postal Service, and former Postal...more
Few issues are more sensitive for employers than accommodating employees’ religious practices and observances. In recent years, Muslim employees and their employers have struggled with how to handle the religious requirement...more
Chutzpah is a Yiddish word derived from the Aramaic ḥuṣpāh. It means impudence, gall, and an audacious disregard for rules. In the world of employment law, it can aptly describe employees who try to get what they want...more
As flu and other respiratory virus rates peak across the U.S., hospitals and other health care providers are responding by taking measures such as limiting patient visitors. For years, one element of this response has...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
On September 25 a federal court in New York dismissed a lawsuit accusing an employer of failing to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs as a member of the “Temple of the Healing Spirits” located in “Deland city,...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
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
On July 31, 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a Christian teacher’s religious discrimination lawsuit over his refusal to refer to transgender students by their names and pronouns with which they identified. ...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
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
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
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
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
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, requires employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate the sincerely held...more
Religious accommodation historically - Employers are quite familiar with the concept of “accommodation;” however, for the last 46 years they have not had to spend much time or effort dealing with an employee’s request to...more
On June 29, 2023, amid a flurry of other newsworthy opinions, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, modifying the legal standard which courts now must use to determine when an employer has to grant a...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. Dejoy is a consequential case for employers facing religious accommodation requests. The Court held that an employer facing such requests does not need to follow the “undue hardship”...more
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an...more
In Groff v. De Joy, Post Master General, No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upended decades-old precedent that set the standard for undue hardship in the context of an employee's request for a...more
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the de minimis standard that many lower courts have applied for decades to determine when Title VII permits employers to refuse an employee’s request for religious...more
How much burden must a company demonstrate before it is relieved of the obligation to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? On June 29, 2023, the Supreme...more
In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “[t]o require [an employer] to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to” grant an employee a religious accommodation under...more