By Dawn Solowey, Lynn Kappelman, and Darien Harris
Seyfarth Synopsis: A unanimous Supreme Court has issued its decision in Groff v. Dejoy, clarifying Title VII’s undue hardship standard to mean “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Court effectively disavowed the long-standing de minimis standard from the seminal TWA v. Hardison
Continue Reading A Unanimous Supreme Court Rules on Undue Hardship in Religious Accommodation: De Minimis Is Out, “Substantial Increased Costs” Is In
Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision providing insight into vaccination accommodations and establishing favorable precedent for employers. 
Seyfarth Synopsis: The 8th Circuit recently held that while a request for a religious accommodation may qualify as a protected activity, it is not necessarily “oppositional” so as to give rise to an opposition-clause retaliation claim under Title VII. Employers considering requests for religious accommodation should, despite this Circuit’s narrow decision, 
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of a nursing home employee alleging she was forced to receive a flu shot to keep her job when she could not provide a note from a clergy member in support of her request, causing emotional distress that made her 
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Tenth Circuit has recently vacated summary judgment in favor of an employer in a religious accommodation case that centers on what constitutes a “reasonable” accommodation of an employee’s observance of – and consequent inability to work on – the Sabbath. In this case, the Court found that the 
Seyfarth Synopsis: According to the EEOC in this just filed lawsuit, a home care services provider in North Carolina violated federal disability rights law when it rejected telecommuting requests from an employee whose asthma and COPD “made her sensitive to workplace smells.” 
Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision by a federal district court in Minnesota held that a religious accommodation request is not “protected activity” under Title VII. In defending retaliation litigation, employers should consider whether there is a viable argument that a request for religious accommodation is not sufficient to establish protected activity as a matter of 
Seyfarth Synopsis: In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judgment against an employer for failing to accommodate an employee’s religious belief that a biometric hand scanner would tag him with the “Mark of the Beast,” contrary to his evangelical Christian religious beliefs.