← All Authorities
United States Leading Case uncategorised

Groff v DeJoy

600 US 447 (2023)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious practices unless doing so imposes substantial hardship on operations, clarifying that 'undue hardship' means more than de minimis cost.

Key Principle

Under Title VII, an employer must accommodate an employee's religious practice unless it would impose a substantial burden on the employer's operations that is more than de minimis; the 'undue hardship' standard from TWA v Hardison was clarified (Justice Alito).

Area of Law

employment

Related Cases

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 165

Employee/independent contractor characterisation is determined by the legal rights and obligations in the written contract, not the totality of the relationship.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 275 CLR 215

HCA confirmed that employee/contractor distinction is determined by contractual terms alone, rejecting the multi-factorial totality-of-relationship test.

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 271 CLR 456

A casual employee's status is determined by the contractual terms at engagement; regularity of work pattern does not transform casual employment into permanent employment.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Groff v DeJoy and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Groff v DeJoy