EEOC Post-Groff Decisions Clarify Religious Accommodation

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy didn’t just tweak the rules for religious accommodation under Title VIIit
rewired the dashboard. For decades, employers could deny an accommodation by pointing to anything “more than a de minimis cost”
(legal-speak for “ugh, that’s mildly annoying”). Groff replaced that squishy standard with something sturdier: an employer has to show the
accommodation would impose a substantial burden in the overall context of the business.

Since then, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been doing what it does best: taking the Supreme Court’s big
principles and translating them into real-world “here’s what you should’ve done” decisionsespecially in federal-sector appeals. The result?
A clearer, tougher, more evidence-driven playbook for employers and employees alike.

In this article, we’ll unpack what “post-Groff” really means, how EEOC decisions are shaping the practical rules of the road, and what
employers can do to stay compliant without turning every accommodation request into a 47-tab spreadsheet (although… you still might).

Why Groff Matters: “Undue Hardship” Got a Real Definition

Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observancesunless doing
so would create an “undue hardship” on the business. Before Groff, many courts treated undue hardship as basically “anything above trivial.”
After Groff, the Supreme Court emphasized that undue hardship means something closer to substantial increased costs or a substantial
operational burden in relation to the employer’s particular business.

That shift matters because it changes the employer’s burden from “show me a hassle” to “show me the receipts.” Vague claims like “morale will
drop,” “people will be mad,” or “this sets a bad precedent” are not the same as demonstrating a substantial burden on operations.

Groff’s Practical Message

• Context is everything: size of business, nature of work, staffing model, operating costs, safety needs, customer obligations.
• Evidence matters: documentation, data, schedules, cost estimates, and the operational ripple effect.
• Alternatives count: if there’s a workable option that solves the conflict with less burden, employers should seriously consider it.

EEOC’s Post-Groff Signal: This Isn’t a “Good Enough” Standard Anymore

The EEOC publicly recognizes Groff’s new standard and notes that Groff supersedes contrary language in older EEOC materials. That’s not just a
footnoteit’s a warning label. Policies, manager training, and internal forms built around “more than minimal cost” can become legal liabilities
if they lead to knee-jerk denials.

But the biggest “how this works in real life” clarity comes from EEOC federal-sector appellate decisions (through its Office of Federal Operations).
These decisions don’t merely repeat Groffthey apply it to messy workplace facts: schedules, safety arguments, coworker complaints, and the
sometimes-underappreciated art form known as “the interactive process.”

Decision #1: Augustine V. v. Department of Veterans AffairsAccommodation Must Be Effective, Not Punitive

One of the most talked-about EEOC post-Groff decisions involves a physician who needed time off for a recurring religious service. The agency
offered optionsbut the EEOC concluded the options were not reasonable under the circumstances because they imposed heavy costs on the
employee that weren’t necessary to solve the scheduling conflict.

What the Agency Offered (and Why It Didn’t Fly)

• A six-day schedule that required the employee to give up a regular day offeffectively paying for religious practice with personal time.
• A part-time transfer that reduced hours and pay dramaticallylike offering a “solution” that quietly sets your paycheck on fire.

The EEOC’s takeaway was blunt: Title VII isn’t a “law of equivalent exchange.” Employers don’t get to say, “Sure, you can attend prayer…
if you accept a major disadvantage we can’t justify.” Reasonable accommodation must be effectivemeaning it actually resolves the conflict
without unnecessarily degrading the employee’s working conditions.

The Better Option: A Partially Compressed Schedule

The employee proposed a common-sense alternative: redistribute the missed hours across other weekdays so the employee still works a full week.
The EEOC viewed this as a reasonable approach that fixed the conflict while preserving the employer’s core interest (getting the work done).

Post-Groff “Coworker Impacts” Rule, Made Concrete

The agency raised concerns that giving one person a Friday schedule benefit might reduce leave availability for coworkers and trigger grumbling.
The EEOC applied Groff’s logic: coworker impacts matter only when they affect the conduct of the business. In other words, “people might be
salty” is not automatically an undue hardship. If the employer claims morale or scheduling friction will hurt operations, it needs evidence and a
clear link to business impactnot speculation.

Decision #2: Andy B. v. Federal ReserveUndue Hardship Requires Proof, and the Interactive Process Must Be Real

Another major post-Groff decision involved an employee seeking a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The EEOC reversed the
agency’s denial, finding the agency did not persuasively show that an effective accommodation would impose an undue hardship under Groff’s
heightened standard.

Two Big Themes: Evidence and Engagement

First, the EEOC emphasized that the employer must produce evidence supporting claims about safety risks, costs, or operational disruption.
Broad statements like “testing is too expensive” or “masking is unsafe” don’t carry the day without documentation and analysis.

Second, the EEOC was critical of what looked like a rushed, checkbox-style process. The interactive process isn’t supposed to be:
“Request received. Denied. Next!” It should be a dialogue aimed at finding an effective accommodation if possible.

A Post-Groff Lesson Employers Don’t Love (But Need): Clarity Counts

The EEOC also highlighted that misunderstandings can be part of the problemespecially where employees lack technical knowledge (for example,
distinctions among vaccine options). The decision underscores that a good-faith interactive process may require employers to clearly explain
relevant options and gather enough information to evaluate what the employee actually believes and what would solve the conflict.

Harassment and Retaliation Risk: Accommodation Requests Are Protected Activity

The case also serves as a reminder that religious accommodation disputes can spawn related claims: harassment, retaliation, and hostile work
environment. When coworkers or supervisors mock, pressure, or retaliate against someone for requesting accommodation, employers can end up
litigating far more than the original scheduling or policy question.

Decision #3: The Broader EEOC TrendWorkplace Dignity and Practical Protections

In the same wave of federal-sector decisions, the EEOC also spotlighted a case involving protections for nursing mothers at work. While not a
religious accommodation case, it reflects the EEOC’s broader posture: workplace accommodations are not “nice-to-haves.” They’re tied to dignity,
equal opportunity, and the realistic conditions people need to work.

The combined message is consistent: employers should treat accommodations as a normal part of compliance, not a disruption to be minimized.

Courts After Groff: What Judges Are Doing With the New Standard

The EEOC isn’t the only institution applying Groff. Federal courts have been working through post-Groff disputes across industriesfrom
healthcare vaccine mandates to public-sector workplace conflicts. The pattern is emerging: outcomes depend heavily on documentation, operational
proof, and whether the employer seriously explored alternatives.

Example: When Employers WinThey Show the Math (and the Mission Impact)

In several vaccine-policy cases, courts have affirmed employer wins where the employer’s policies tied directly to patient safety, regulatory
expectations, and operational needsand where the employer could show that the requested accommodation would materially compromise those
interests or impose substantial burdens.

Example: When Employees Get a Second Look“Disruption” Can’t Be Just a Vibe

Post-Groff decisions have also revived claims when employers relied on generalized “disruption” arguments without strong proof. For example, in
a high-profile case involving an accommodation request in a school setting, an appeals court emphasized the employer must show more than
dissatisfaction and complaintsit must demonstrate actual, meaningful interference with the organization’s mission or operations.

So What Counts as an “Undue Hardship” Now?

Groff didn’t hand employers a simple checklistand neither have the post-Groff EEOC decisions. But the trend is clear: employers need to think
like investigators, not fortune-tellers.

Factors That Can Support Undue Hardship (When Proven)

• Substantial direct costs: measurable expenses that are significant in context (not token amounts).
• Safety risks: credible evidence that the accommodation creates real safety hazards, not hypothetical fears.
• Operational breakdown: inability to meet core business obligations (coverage gaps, critical deadlines, required staffing ratios).
• Legal conflicts: credible risk of violating other binding legal obligations (not merely speculative exposure).
• CBA or seniority systems: where an accommodation would infringe enforceable rights under a collective bargaining agreement.

What Usually Won’t Be Enough (Without More)

• “People will complain.”
• “It’s not fair.”
• “We’ve never done that before.”
• “It might cause morale issues.”
• “This could open the floodgates.” (Courts prefer evidence to slippery-slope prophecy.)

Employer Best Practices: A Post-Groff Accommodation Playbook

If your organization’s religious accommodation approach still lives in the “minimal cost” era, it’s time for an upgrade. The goal is not to grant
every request automatically, but to make decisions in a documented, fair, individualized, Groff-aligned way.

1) Treat Requests Like Business Decisions (Because They Are)

Evaluate the accommodation’s practical impact: staffing, coverage, safety, cost, workflow, customer service. Write it down. If you deny, your
file should explain why in plain language backed by facts.

2) Make the Interactive Process a Conversation, Not a Form Letter

Ask what conflict exists, when, how often, and what solutions would work. Consider temporary trials. Explore alternatives (shift swaps,
redistributed hours, reassignment, flexible breaks, policy exceptions). A good interactive process often prevents lawsuits because employees feel
heardeven if the final answer is “no.”

3) Separate “Coworker Annoyance” From “Business Harm”

Groff and the EEOC decisions push employers to connect coworker impacts to business operations. If there’s a real coverage gap, show it. If it
causes missed service levels, prove it. If the only issue is “they don’t like it,” that’s not an undue hardshipit’s a management moment.

4) Train Managers to Stop Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

Statements like “religion doesn’t belong at work” or “we don’t make exceptions” are lawsuit appetizers. Managers should know how to recognize a
religious accommodation request, how to route it to HR, and how to avoid retaliation and harassment risks.

5) Update Policies and Templates

Ensure handbooks, forms, and internal guidance reflect the substantial-burden standard. Outdated language can lead to outdated decisions.

Conclusion: Post-Groff, “Reasonable” Means Effectiveand “Hardship” Means Proven

The EEOC’s post-Groff decisions do more than repeat the Supreme Court’s words. They show what compliance looks like when the rubber meets the
workplace: employers must offer effective accommodations when feasible, avoid punitive “trade-offs” that unnecessarily burden employees, and
support undue-hardship claims with real evidence tied to business operations.

The bottom line: religious accommodation is no longer a “minimal cost” debate. It’s a fact-specific inquiry where documentation, genuine dialogue,
and practical problem-solving can keep your organization both compliant and humane. And if you can do it without turning your calendar into a
battlefield… congratulations, you’re already ahead of the curve.

Experience-Based Add-On: What Post-Groff Religious Accommodation Looks Like in Real Workplaces (500+ Words)

Let’s talk about the part that doesn’t show up in neat legal summaries: the day-to-day reality of religious accommodation requests after Groff.
Even when everyone’s acting in good faith, the workplace can feel like a live-action puzzleexcept the pieces are time, staffing, customer needs,
and the fact that Tuesdays still only have 24 hours.

One common pattern is the “schedule request that arrives like a meteor.” An employee says, “I can’t work Friday evenings anymore,” and a manager
hears, “We need to rewrite civilization.” Post-Groff, the better move is to slow down and map the real conflict: Is it every week? A seasonal
observance? A specific time window? Sometimes the request sounds huge because the explanation is short. When HR asks a few follow-up questions,
the solution gets smallerlike shifting a recurring meeting, swapping a closing task, or adjusting start/end times by an hour.

Another frequent situation: “coworker fairness” becomes the loudest voice in the room. Someone says, “Why do they get that day off?” and suddenly
the accommodation is being judged like a reality show elimination. But Groff and the EEOC’s post-Groff decisions push employers to manage fairness
thoughtfully without turning it into a veto. Fairness isn’t “everyone suffers equally.” Fairness is consistent rules, transparent reasoning, and a
willingness to adjust schedules in ways that keep operations running. Practically, what helps is offering neutral options to the whole teamlike
voluntary shift swaps, cross-training, and a rotating “who covers what” planso the accommodation doesn’t feel like a secret perk.

You also see the “paperwork trap.” Some workplaces overreact to Groff by building a process so complex it feels like applying for a mortgage just to
get a prayer break. Post-Groff compliance does require documentation, but it doesn’t require bureaucracy cosplay. The best systems capture:
(1) what the conflict is, (2) what options were considered, (3) what operational impacts were evaluated, and (4) why the final decision was made.
The tone matters too. A respectful, matter-of-fact write-up often defuses conflict. A cold template denial that reads like it was written by a printer
from 1998 can escalate things fast.

Then there’s the “we tried it once and it didn’t work” dilemma. Post-Groff doesn’t mean an accommodation is permanent no matter what. It means
employers should try reasonable options, monitor real impact, and adjust if needed. In practice, trial periods are gold. A 30-day pilot for a modified
schedule or duty swap can produce real data: Did coverage suffer? Did overtime spike? Were deadlines missed? If the answer is no, you have evidence
the accommodation works. If the answer is yes, you have evidence to refine the planor, if necessary, to show hardship with something stronger than
“we had a bad feeling about it.”

Finally, the most underrated “experience lesson” is culture. A workplace that treats accommodation requests as normal (not suspicious) tends to get
clearer communication and better outcomes. Employees ask earlier instead of waiting until a crisis. Managers respond calmly instead of defensively.
And HR spends less time playing referee. Post-Groff, legal risk isn’t just about the final answerit’s about whether you looked for solutions like you
actually wanted to find one. When the process is respectful and evidence-based, even tough decisions are easier to defendand easier for people to
accept.