Religious Accommodations in the Workplace: The Washington Supreme Court Heightens the “Undue Hardship” Standard
Overview
On July 25, 2024, the Washington Supreme Court held in Suarez v. State that an employer denying an employee’s request for religious accommodation must now meet a heightened “undue hardship” standard under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), which applies to employers with 8 or more employees. The new standard under the WLAD now requires an employer to show that granting a religious accommodation request would be a “substantial burden” in the context of the employer’s business. This heightened standard is substantially the same as the standard required under Title VII.
Although this ruling will likely make it easier for employees to obtain religious accommodations in the workplace, religion still cannot be given favored treatment above other protected classes under the WLAD.
Background
An employer can defend itself from an employee’s claim of failure to reasonably accommodate a religious practice by showing that the accommodation would be an “undue hardship.”
As previously understood by Washington courts and most federal courts, the “undue hardship” standard required only that an employer show that an accommodation would result in “more than a de minimis cost.” However, in its recent decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court heightened this “undue hardship” standard.
In Groff, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that under Title VII, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show that the burden of granting such accommodation would be “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
The Washington Supreme Court had previously stayed a ruling of Suarez as it awaited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff.
The New “Undue Hardship” Standard Under Washington Law
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Groff, the Washington Supreme Court has altered its interpretation of “undue hardship” Under the WLAD. Now, when considering whether a religious accommodation would constitute an “undue hardship” on an employer, the employer must show “that the burden of granting [the] accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This “substantial burdens” test is substantially the same as the test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff under Title VII.
Factors used in this “substantial burdens” test include the particular accommodation at issue and the practical effect of the accommodation with regards to the nature, size, and operating costs of the employer.
An employer can still show “undue hardship” under the heightened “substantial burdens” test even without establishing financial or monetary loss. For example, a religious accommodation that would require an employer to violate a governmental mandate would constitute “undue hardship” under the new standard. As would an accommodation that would lead to “unreasonable safety risks,” an accommodation that would create an “undue hardship” on the employee’s coworkers, an accommodation that would violate a collective bargaining agreement or seniority rights, or an accommodation that would result in premium overtime pay to another employee.
The Washington Supreme Court also made clear in its opinion in Suarez that giving “preferential treatment on the basis of religion to the detriment of other protected classes” would be an “undue hardship” and grounds to deny a religious accommodation request. Although the plaintiff in Suarez asked that religion be given “favored treatment,” the Washington Supreme Court held that such preferential treatment is prohibited under the WLAD.
What Does this Mean for Washington Employers?
Washington employers may see an increase in religious accommodation requests and, in denying these requests, should be prepared to meet this heightened “substantial burdens” test under the WLAD, which is substantially the same test already required under Title VII. However, an employer considering a religious accommodation request should do so carefully, particularly if – for example – granting such a request would violate another employee’s seniority rights under a collective bargaining agreement.
Employers should reevaluate their policies and retrain individuals involved in making decisions on religious accommodation requests. And in determining whether a specific employee’s religious accommodation request would be a “substantial burden,” employers should contact their counsel for guidance.
For more information or questions, contact Richard J. Omata or the Karr Tuttle Campbell attorney with whom you normally work.