{"id":30394,"date":"2023-07-05T17:16:00","date_gmt":"2023-07-05T17:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&p=30394"},"modified":"2025-11-24T20:05:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T20:05:12","slug":"supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

At the end of its 2023 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several buzz-worthy decisions. Two opinions may have substantial and lasting impacts on employers and their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General<\/em>, the Court addressed religious accommodation and clarified the parameters of its \u201cundue burden\u201d standard set forth in its prior decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/em>, 432 U. S. 63 (1977). 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College<\/em>, the Court found collegiate race-conscious admission systems (affirmative action policies) unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This  decision may signal that the same type of analysis will be applied to employers\u2019 diversity and inclusion programs in the future. 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2791.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, <\/strong>2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790<\/strong> \u2013 Gerald Groff worked for the United States Postal Service. As an Evangelical Christian, Groff requested Sundays off so that he could observe his religion\u2019s Sabbath. In doing so, Groff\u2019s deliveries were redistributed among his coworkers and Groff received progressive discipline for his absences. In its decision vacating and remanding the Third Circuit Court of Appeal\u2019s decision in favor of the employer, the Court performed an extensive analysis of Hardison<\/em>. Specifically, the Court explained that lower courts have mistakenly used Hardison\u2019s<\/em> \u201cde minimis\u201d language as the governing standard in religious accommodation cases. Taking from the express language of Title VII, the Court clarified that an \u201cundue burden\u201d is one that results in \u201csubstantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer\u2019s] particular business.\u201d Accordingly, the \u201cmore than de minimis<\/em>\u201d standard frequently used by courts does not amount to an \u201cundue burden.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what meets the \u201cundue burden\u201d threshold, it did provide some practical guidance. It noted that \u201ca good deal of the EEOC\u2019s guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by our clarifying decision today.\u201d Additionally, the Court affirmatively stated that \u201ctemporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, and administrative costs[]\u201d do not<\/em> constitute an \u201cundue burden.\u201d Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion and was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Sotomayor emphasized that the impact on coworkers could be considered in an employer\u2019s analysis of \u201cundue burden,\u201d which was an argument Groff asked the Court to reject. In making her point, Justice Sotomayor explained that \u201cfor many businesses, labor is more important to the conduct of the business than any other factor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To note, the Court did not apply its analysis to Groff, but rather remanded the case and now leaves factual assessments under this standard to the trial courts. Regardless, this decision is considered a victory for employees claiming the need for religious accommodation. Moving forward, employers should keep in mind the Court\u2019s clarification in Groff<\/em> when confronted with such accommodation requests. The EEOC\u2019s examples and suggestions of reasonable and unreasonable accommodations are a helpful resource.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2791<\/strong> \u2013 Petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., filed suits against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina arguing that the institutions\u2019 admission processes violate Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court agreed and found that universities may not consider race as a determining factor as part of their admissions systems. The Court came to its conclusion by looking back at its 2003 decision Grutter v. Bollinger<\/em>, 539 U. S. 306. In Grutter<\/em>, the Court wrote that \u201call race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point],]\u201d so as not to offend the \u201cfundamental equal protection principle[]\u201d outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Today\u2019s Court latched onto Grutter\u2019s<\/em> mention of a \u201ctermination point\u201d and decided that Respondents could not articulate a clear \u201ctermination point\u201d to their current admissions systems. Further, that they lacked clear, compelling interests to justify their lack of a \u201ctermination point.\u201d To conclude its decision, the Court stated that colleges may consider \u201can applicant\u2019s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sotomayor penned a dissent with which Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson concurred. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that race-conscious admissions programs have helped further the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent cited several past opinions in which \u201crace-based action\u201d was within \u201cconstitutional constraints\u201d and countered that the Court has never required parties to meet such a precise threshold of establishing a compelling interest as it has done so for the Respondents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Court\u2019s decision focuses on the admissions processes of universities, its holding could very well spill over to employers\u2019 diversity-focused initiatives, as well as mandatory affirmative action for \u201ccovered contractors under Executive Order 11246 and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) regulations.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you have any questions on how these decisions may ultimately affect your business, please reach out to your Dinsmore attorney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> See Practical Takeaways for Employers from The Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision<\/em>, The National Law Review, https:\/\/www.natlawreview.com\/article\/practical-takeaways-employers-supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision<\/a> (last visited July 3, 2023).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the end of its 2023 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several buzz-worthy decisions. Two opinions may have substantial and lasting impacts on employers and their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Court addressed religious accommodation and clarified the parameters of its \u201cundue burden\u201d standard\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[12],"class_list":["post-30394","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-legal-alerts"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action - Dinsmore & Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore & Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-24T20:05:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action - Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-05T17:16:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-24T20:05:12+00:00\",\"description\":\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action - Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action","og_description":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-11-24T20:05:12+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/","name":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action - Dinsmore & Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-05T17:16:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-24T20:05:12+00:00","description":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/SCOTUS-Header-V2.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/supreme-court-issues-opinions-on-religious-accommodation-and-affirmative-action\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Religious Accommodation and Affirmative Action"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/30394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/30394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62128,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/30394\/revisions\/62128"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30394"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=30394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}