Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Supreme Court Toughens Employers’ Obligations to Accommodate Religion

by June 29, 2023
June 29, 2023

Walter Olson

The result of today’s Supreme Court opinion in Groff v. DeJoy is to load private, not just public, employers with new practical burdens in the name of accommodating employees’ religious beliefs. The Court does so by nimbly reinterpreting, as opposed to overturning, the longstanding standard set forth in TWA v. Hardison (1977), which interpreted Title VII as requiring accommodation of this sort by employers only when the costs were “de minimis.” Whatever the standard appropriate for government workplaces, there are high stakes in imposing a standard on private workplaces. Today’s decision leaves private employment relations in America less free.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a concurrence joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Congress has consistently passed up the opportunity to adopt a standard more burdensome to employers than Hardison, even though it has not hesitated to revisit and correct many other high court decisions on Title VII workplace discrimination that it saw as mistaken. We may hope that the Court’s newly announced standard, which shifts focus from the question of whether burdens are “de minimis” to that of whether they are “substantial,” will in practice not amount to a drastic change.

Sotomayor makes a further point worth noting in her concurrence. It has been known to happen that a private employer’s compelled acceptance of religious accommodation requests will adversely affect the interests of co‐​workers. While Title VII will not allow these interests to enter into the balance when based on mere animus or prejudice toward a religion, it is legitimate for an employer to weigh other sorts of harm to co‐​workers when they work to impair the management of the workplace. If a workplace divided by differential treatment based on religion or any other identity is a less efficient and unified workplace, it will often be legitimate for employers to say no to that differential treatment.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
“Greedflation” Is an Accounting Identity Not an Economic Explanation
next post
CBO Projects Challenging Fiscal Future in Long‐​Term Budget Outlook

You may also like

Defending Globalization, Now Available in Paperback and Ebook

November 14, 2024

Regarding the Efficacy and Constitutionality of the Debt...

December 22, 2024

Data Show Trump Would’ve Released as Many Border...

January 5, 2024

Trump Will Likely Cut Legal Entries More Than...

January 21, 2025

Why Germany Should Preserve Its Debt Brake and...

September 19, 2024

The Tax Bill’s Success Will Turn on Regulatory...

August 6, 2025

81 Percent Say They Can’t Afford to Pay...

April 14, 2025

Friday Feature: Challenger School

May 26, 2023

How the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals Restarted...

July 18, 2024

Luna Introduces PATRIOT Act Repeal Bill

May 9, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Trump’s Debanking Order Calls for Investigation, Something Tennessee Should Have Done

      August 9, 2025
    • Jeremy Clarkson warns of ‘catastrophic’ UK harvest as farmers battle extreme weather and rising costs

      August 9, 2025
    • Reform UK urges energy industry to abandon net zero and focus on nuclear and gas

      August 9, 2025
    • British Shoppers flock to EU for tax-free spending as calls grow to reinstate UK scheme

      August 9, 2025
    • Employment minister warns ‘job deserts’ and long-term sickness are holding back Britain

      August 9, 2025
    • Former Dragons’ Den star Julie Meyer stripped of MBE after court contempt ruling

      August 9, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,725)
    • Investing (2,191)
    • Politics (16,344)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved