In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court provided “clarification” on the undue hardship standard in religious accommodation claims. The Court heightened the burden on employers to defend against such claims and effectively requires that employers overhaul their own procedures for analysis of religious accommodations.
Articles Discussing General Topics Regarding Religious Discrimination Claims Under Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964.
Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Religious Accommodation Title VII Case
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States revived an employee’s religious discrimination lawsuit, unanimously holding that to deny a sincere religious accommodation request under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers must show that the burden of granting it “would result in substantial increased
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling in Religious Accommodation Case
Groff Takes DeJoy: U.S. Supreme Court Changes Standard in Religious Accommodation Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has “clarified” and changed the religious accommodation standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have relied upon for more than 46 years. Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023).
High Court Mulls How Far Employers Must Go to Accommodate Employees’ Religious Practices
During recent oral arguments, justices for the Supreme Court of the United States seemed conflicted on whether to upend the existing standard that allows an employer to refuse religious accommodations to its employees if the employer can show that granting the accommodation would involve more than a “de minimis” cost
Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Title VII Religious Accommodation Standard
On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case raising the issue of how great a burden an employer must bear in order to accommodate an employee’s religious belief or practices.
The Rise in Antisemitism in America
There has been a recent, dramatic rise in antisemitism in the United States. In this podcast, David Goldman, the Executive Director and General Counsel of Congregation Emanu-El in San Francisco, shares his perspective on how this trend is impacting our communities and workplaces, and offers some practical insights as
Will U.S. Supreme Court Place an Undue Hardship on Employers When It Decides Groff v. DeJoy?
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether its own definition of “undue hardship” with respect to religious accommodation requests, which employers have relied upon for more than 45 years, remains valid when it hears oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174.
Taking a Stand against Antisemitism – What Can Employers Do?
It is no secret that antisemitism is on the rise throughout the United States. The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL’s) 2021 Survey on Jewish Americans’ Experience with Antisemitism found that in the last five years, 63 percent of Jewish people either experienced or witnessed an antisemitic event.
U.S Supreme Court Finds High School Coach’s Post-Game Prayers Covered Under First Amendment
Executive Summary: The recent Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 142 S. Ct. 2407 (June 27, 2022), is the latest to promote free exercise of speech and religion over all other competing interests. In its June 27, 2022 opinion, the Court’s conservative majority held that the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in personal religious observances from government reprisal, even when he does so on school property at a school-sponsored event. Kennedy held that a coach may pray at the 50-yard line after a high school football game. The decision strays from and overturns prior Supreme Court precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), adhering to the separation of church and state, one of the United States’ founding principles.
U.S. Supreme Court: School District Can’t Discipline Coach for Post-Game Public Religious Observances
A school district infringed on an assistant football coach’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it suspended him for continuing to publicly pray after football games in violation of its policy, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., No. 21-418, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3218 (June 27, 2022).
Seventh Circuit Issues Decision Finding Broad Scope of Ministerial Exception; Questions Remain
On July 9, 2021, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a 7-3 decision in the closely watched case Sandor Demkovich v. St Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City and the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Seventh Circuit found that the ministerial exception acted as a per se bar to the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.
Supreme Court: Philadelphia Ordinance Unconstitutionally Burdened Religious Exercise
The U.S. Supreme Court has found that Philadelphia’s ordinance requiring a private foster care agency to certify same-sex couples as foster parents burdened the agency’s religious exercise in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Balancing Public Employees’ Religious Rights with the Establishment Clause
When it comes to striking a balance between the religious rights of government employees and the government’s duty to avoid Establishment Clause violations, “context matters.”
In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 991 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit held that the public prayer by Joseph Kennedy, a football
Defining “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs” That Might Excuse Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination?
Whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in most religious discrimination lawsuits. With both the EEOC and DFEH guidance requiring employers to accommodate an employee who has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents an employee from receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccinations, the issue of what is a “sincerely held religious belief” has become more important in employment law. This is particularly true for those employers that decide to mandate the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment or condition of receiving certain employment benefits.