In this appeal, the employee contends the trial court should set aside an order approving the settlement of her workers’ compensation claim because she did not have the emotional or mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded the employee failed to provide grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in the case of Groff v. DeJoy[1] jettisoned the long-held de minimis cost standard for religious accommodation claims under Title VII. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, like most circuits,[2] had construed the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison[3] to mean that “requiring an employer to bear more than a de minimis cost to provide a religious accommodation is an undue burden.”[4] Rather than completely overruling Hardison, the court clarified the undue hardship standard to mean that “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”[5]

Although the Supreme Court’s decision did not reach the merits of the case, the essential facts are as follows. Gerald Groff was a postal carrier whose religious beliefs prohibited him from working on Sundays. USPS offered to facilitate shift swaps for Groff on each Sunday that he was scheduled to work, but that offer did not eliminate Groff’s religious conflict because USPS could not find co-workers to cover all of Groff’s Sunday shifts. When Groff did not work on those Sundays, he was disciplined. Groff received eight performance deficiency interviews and three official disciplinary actions for not working on Sundays. Following the last disciplinary action — a 14-day suspension — Groff resigned. USPS argued that it could not fully accommodate Groff’s religious beliefs because doing so would impose an undue hardship.  Specifically, USPS cited the increased workload on coworkers and low employee morale as evidence of undue hardship.

As discussed in a previous article by Heather Moore Collins, the de minimis cost standard has been under severe scrutiny for years.[6] Therefore, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court cast aside the lenient standard for a more stringent one. It did so based on two grounds. First, it noted that the majority opinion in Hardison included language that suggested that an accommodation is not required when it entails substantial costs or expenditures.[7] Second, applying the plain meaning of the statutory term “undue hardship,” the court noted that the costs of granting an accommodation “would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding the modifier ‘undue’ means that the requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an ‘excessive’ or ‘unjustifiable’ level.”[8] Clearly, an undue hardship is far more than a burden that is merely more than de minimis.

While the court articulated a more stringent standard for undue hardship, it refused to adopt the undue hardship definition[9] set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.[10] It likewise refused to adopt the EEOC’s guidelines construing Hardison,[11] although it did note that “a good deal of the EEOC’s guidance in this area is sensible.”[12] The only practical guidance that the court gave for evaluating undue hardship under the new standard “is that courts must apply the test in a manner that takes into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of [the] employer.”[13]

Additionally, the court addressed whether an employer may demonstrate undue hardship merely by showing a burden upon co-workers rather than the business itself. According to the court, “an accommodation’s effect on co-workers may have ramifications for the conduct of the employer’s business, but a court cannot stop its analysis without examining whether that further logical step is shown in a particular case.”[14] Evidence merely showing a co-worker’s dislike of religious practices or religious expression in the workplace, or evidence of a coworker’s dislike of accommodations in general are insufficient.[15] In other words, evidence of co-worker impact may be relevant only if such impact is shown to negatively affect the employer’s business operations.

Finally, the court noted that an employer’s duty under Title VII must go further than simply assessing the reasonableness of a particular religious accommodation proposed by the employee. If the accommodation proposed by the employee constitutes an undue hardship, the employer must consider alternatives to fulfill its duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious belief or practice.[16]

The Groff decision has far-sweeping ramifications for religious accommodation claims. No longer will employers have a relatively light burden in proving an affirmative defense to such claims. But what are the practical contours of the “clarified standard” — a showing of substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business? Will courts begin to analyze these claims in a light similar to the ADA’s undue hardship framework even though the Supreme Court expressly refused to adopt the ADA framework? Time will tell. For now, the Supreme Court has left “the context-specific application of [its] clarified standard to the lower courts.”[17] For Gerald Groff, that means his case is being remanded to the Third Circuit to review the record afresh and to decide whether any further factual development is needed.

Doug Hamill currently serves as chair of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Section.  He is a member of Mikel & Hamill PLLC, a Chattanooga based law firm whose primary focus is plaintiff-side employment discrimination law.  Hamill received his law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2003.  He may be reached at 423-541-5400 or dhamill@mhemploymentlaw.com.

A Nashville law firm has filed a lawsuit against a landlord and tenant for their alleged responsibility in the November 2022 fentanyl overdose death of an infant. Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC is representing Mickey Rose, the grandfather of Ariel Rose, a one-year-old who was exposed to a lethal dose of fentanyl while at Nashville's Highroad Transitional Housing Facility. Rose is also seeking damages under Tennessee’s Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA), which provides a civil remedy to persons damaged in a community as a result of illegal drug use.

Here’s the summer 2023 newsletter from TBA’s Labor and Employment Section. I want to thank our writers — Doug Hamill, Scott Simmons and Kaya Grace Porter for their excellent articles.

This is my final issue as editor of this newsletter. It’s been a real honor to edit this publication for the past 18 or so years. I have had the opportunity to read so many great articles and get to know some great attorneys. But it’s time to pass the baton to someone else. Hopefully, I will still get a chance to pen an article or two down the road.

- Bruce Buchanan
bbuchanan@littler.com

Reps. Justin Jones, D-Nashville, and Justin J. Pearson, D-Memphis, raised about $2 million in their week-long absence from the state House after expulsion in March. The Tennessee Lookout reports that the removal of Jones and Pearson allowed the lawmakers to raise money during the legislative session, which is normally not permitted. Jones raised $1,079,688.86 over the first six months of the year, and Pearson raised $1,058,036.34. Part of Pearson’s total includes the roughly $52,000 he raised at the start of 2023 to win his House seat in a special election held in January. Both face Republican opponents in the Aug. 3 general election.

Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Mary Wagner on Friday ruled that Alicia Franklin will not have her civil case against the city of Memphis re-opened. Franklin said she was raped by Cleotha Abston-Henderson a year before he was charged with Eliza Fletcher's murder and kidnapping in September. The Commercial Appeal reports that Franklin's case — which alleges the Memphis Police Department did not investigate her rape despite providing the name, contact information and social media account of the man who did it — was dismissed in March this year.

The Cozza Law Group is planning an expansion to Nashville this fall. The Nashville Post reports that the firm is focused on business and entertainment law and has a presence in New York City and Pittsburgh. Firm founder Rocco Cozza is also the CEO of Alpha LPO, a legal process outsourcing provider.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee yesterday appointed Shari Tayloe as District Attorney General for the 10th Judicial District to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of General Stephen Crump, effective immediately. The 10th Judicial District covers Bradley, McMinn, Monroe and Polk counties. Tayloe brings nearly 25 years of prosecutorial experience to her new role, most recently serving as deputy district attorney general for the 10th Judicial District, a position she has held for six years. Tayloe earned her bachelor’s degree at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and her law degree at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

“Welcome to Capitol Hill,” a new book by veteran Tennessee state house reporters Joel Ebert and Erik Schelzig, will be available Aug. 17 through Vanderbilt University Press. The book covers Gov. Ray Blanton's pardon scandals, the secret FBI wiretap used in the Rocky Top investigation and more recent examples of sexual misconduct in the legislature. Axios Nashville reports that the authors say studying the scandals is more than just an academic exercise; it reveals the vital importance of the media as a watchdog. Several times, the public learned of politicians' dubious behavior through investigations by Nashville journalists, including Schelzig and Ebert's own reporting of the more recent scandals.

The Wilder Youth Development Center in Fayette County, from which three juveniles escaped in March, will receive almost $2 million for updates, including security cameras and more than 100 beds. According to ABC24 in Memphis, a recent report by Disability Rights Tennessee entitled “Designed to Fail: A Report on Wilder Youth Development Center, a Department of Children’s Services Facility," documented what the rights group describe as “destructive practices” upheld by the Wilder Center. The report also alleged that parties responsible for investigations of physical and sexual assault did not follow up or perform in-depth reviews of center employees who were the subject of 10 or more investigations.