Understanding 'Substantial Burden' for Religious Accommodations After Groff

The Supreme Court's Groff v. DeJoy decision changed how employers must evaluate religious accommodation requests, raising the bar for proving 'undue hardship'.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 3, 2026

Branched from Religious Exemptions from Healthcare and Vaccine Mandates: Where Courts Draw the Line

Quick take

The *Groff v. DeJoy* Supreme Court decision redefined the 'undue hardship' standard for religious accommodations.
Employers must now demonstrate that denying a religious accommodation would impose a 'substantial burden' on their business.
This is a significantly higher bar than the previous 'de minimis' (minimal) cost standard.
Employers need to thoroughly explore all reasonable accommodation options before denying a religious request.

In *Groff v. DeJoy*, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what constitutes an "undue hardship" for employers when considering religious accommodation requests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This landmark 2023 decision arose from a postal worker's request for Sundays off due to his religious beliefs, and it significantly shifted the legal standard, making it harder for employers to deny such requests.

What Changed: From "De Minimis" to "Substantial Burden"

Before *Groff*, many courts interpreted "undue hardship" as anything more than a "de minimis" (minimal) cost or burden to the employer. This meant that even a slight inconvenience or minor expense could be sufficient grounds for an employer to deny a religious accommodation. This low bar often led to employees' requests being easily dismissed.

The *Groff* decision explicitly rejected this "de minimis" standard. The Supreme Court ruled that to demonstrate "undue hardship," an employer must show that granting an accommodation would result in "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer's particular business." This requires a significant difficulty or expense, not just a minor impact. The burden must be substantial in the overall context of the employer's operations.

Evaluating a Request Under the New Standard

Under the new standard, employers must undertake a more rigorous assessment when an employee requests a religious accommodation. They can no longer simply point to minor disruptions. Instead, they must demonstrate that the proposed accommodation would genuinely impose a significant burden on the business, which could include substantial financial costs, significant impacts on workplace safety, or a major disruption to workflow that genuinely impairs the business's ability to operate effectively.

This means employers are expected to explore all potential reasonable accommodations thoroughly. They must engage in an interactive process with the employee to find a workable solution, and only if all reasonable options would result in a "substantial burden" can the request be denied. The focus is on the *actual* burden, not just potential or speculative difficulties.

This decision significantly strengthens protections for employees seeking religious accommodations, requiring employers to be much more proactive and thorough in finding solutions. It means employers can no longer easily dismiss requests due to minor inconvenience or administrative hurdles. While not every request must be granted, the bar for denial is now considerably higher, fostering more inclusive workplaces but also presenting new operational and legal considerations for businesses.

Does this mean employers have to grant every religious accommodation request?

No, but employers must demonstrate that denying a request would impose a "substantial burden" on their business, which is a much higher bar than the previous "de minimis" standard. They must exhaust all reasonable alternatives first.

Is "substantial burden" only about money?

While financial cost is a factor, "substantial burden" can also include significant impacts on workplace safety, efficiency, or the rights of other employees. However, these impacts must be truly *substantial* and not just minor inconveniences or administrative difficulties.

What should employers do now to comply?

Employers should review and update their religious accommodation policies, train HR personnel and managers on the new standard, and ensure they engage in an interactive process with employees to explore all possible reasonable accommodations before denying a request.

Does this apply to all types of religious beliefs?

Yes, Title VII protects all sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs. The employer cannot question the legitimacy of the belief itself, only whether accommodating it would create a substantial burden on the business operations.

Sources

Groff v. DeJoy, 599 U.S. ___ (2023)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on religious discrimination