Religious Schedule Accommodations After the Groff Decision: Stronger Protections for NJ Workers

Requests for time off for Sabbath observance, prayer, or other faith-based practices are common in many workplaces. In New Jersey, these requests fall under workplace religious accommodation rules. Recent legal developments have changed how employers must evaluate them.

The decision in Groff v. DeJoy by the Supreme Court of the United States raised the standard employers must meet when denying religious accommodations. Over years of practice at Brandon J. Broderick, we’ve seen how employers treat minor inconvenience as a reason to reject a request. After Groff, the legal threshold for refusal is higher. Employers must show a meaningful burden on business operations.

Denying a religious schedule accommodation without showing a substantial hardship violates federal and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws.

In this guide, we discuss how the landmark decision affects schedule adjustments, what employers must prove before rejecting a request, and when it’s time to consult a hostile work environment lawyer in New Jersey.

When New Jersey Law Requires Religious Schedule Accommodations at Work

Religious accommodation rules come from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination. This includes traditional faiths, smaller belief systems, and personal practices rooted in moral or ethical beliefs. Employers must respect sincerely held faith-based practices.

Common examples of schedule adjustments include:

• Allowing employees to swap shifts with coworkers
• Adjusting start or end times
• Granting time off for religious holidays
• Allowing unpaid leave when paid time off is exhausted
• Reassigning shifts where staffing allows

The requests don’t require formal language. An employee doesn’t need to cite a statute or fill out a special form. A simple explanation that a schedule conflicts with a protected practice triggers the employer’s duty to evaluate the request.

Employers must engage in a good-faith discussion. A flat refusal without exploring alternatives often creates legal risk.

New Jersey workers receive an additional layer of protection through the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). This state law prohibits bias and requires employers to provide workplace adjustments for faith-based practices.

NJLAD allows workers to bring claims when an employer refuses workplace adjustments or allows workplace conduct driven by religious intolerance. A supervisor who repeatedly schedules shifts during a worker’s Sabbath observance or dismisses holiday requests without discussion creates legal risk. It exposes the employer to liability under both federal and New Jersey law.

A denied day off or a scheduling dispute might seem routine. But in our work at Brandon J. Broderick, we often see a pattern. Repeated conflicts or dismissive responses from management frequently turn what begins as a simple scheduling issue into a legal dispute.

A recent Supreme Court decision changed how courts evaluate these disputes across the country.

Groff v. DeJoy and Its Impact on Religious Accommodations in New Jersey

Religious accommodation cases long followed a rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977). Courts interpreted this decision to mean employers could refuse an accommodation if it created more than a minimal cost.

The rule became known as the “de minimis” standard. Under this interpretation, many accommodation requests failed. Employers argued that even minor scheduling disruptions created a burden. Courts often agreed.

The Supreme Court revisited that standard in Groff v. DeJoy (2023).

Gerald Groff worked as a rural mail carrier for the United States Postal Service. Groff is an evangelical Christian who observes Sunday as a Sabbath day of rest. For several years, his job didn’t require Sunday work. When the Postal Service began delivering Amazon packages on Sundays, Groff asked for a schedule change so he wouldn’t have to work that day.

Supervisors attempted temporary solutions, including shift swaps. Over time, the arrangement collapsed. Groff faced disciplinary action for missing shifts and eventually resigned.

He sued the Postal Service under Title VII, arguing the agency failed to consider his religious practice. Lower courts ruled against him using the long-standing de minimis rule. According to those courts, requiring coworkers to cover shifts created enough burden to justify denying the request.

The Supreme Court rejected how lower courts had been applying the law. In a unanimous decision, the Court explained that the “more than de minimis cost” test misinterpreted Title VII. Employers now face a higher standard before refusing a religious accommodation.

The Court clarified that employers must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s business. Minor inconvenience no longer qualifies. 

Courts look at the real impact on the business, including the company’s size, the nature of the work, and whether practical alternatives exist. Hostility toward coworkers because of their faith or immigration status doesn’t excuse an employer from providing a lawful adjustment.

Employers now need stronger proof. For workers, the decision provides stronger legal support for accommodation requests.

How the Groff Decision Changes Employer Denials of Religious Day-Off Requests In NJ

Scheduling issues tied to religious observance are common in many workplaces. Employees often request time off for religious holidays or adjustments to their work schedules to observe their faith. It leaves little room for flexibility. 

The Sabbath provides a clear example. A worker whose faith prohibits work from Friday evening through Saturday evening cannot move that practice to another day. In our experience reviewing workplace disputes, requests like this become a source of tension between employees and management.

Before the Groff ruling, employers rejected these requests with little explanation. A supervisor might claim that letting one employee skip weekend shifts would create scheduling inconvenience. 

The new standard requires more. Employers must show that granting the request would create substantial business costs or serious disruption. A modest adjustment no longer meets that threshold.

Consider several common workplace scenarios.

• A restaurant employee asks for Saturdays off. Other workers volunteer to swap shifts. Management rejects the request without discussion. After Groff, courts look closely at that decision. In our experience, voluntary shift swap rarely creates a substantial hardship.
• A Muslim employee requests time off for Eid. Management denies the request, claiming staffing concerns. If the employer didn’t attempt a compromise or consider temporary coverage, the refusal violates the law.

Courts reviewing these disputes examine how the employer responded:

• Did the employer consider alternatives such as shift swaps or flexible scheduling?
• Did management evaluate the request individually rather than applying a blanket rule?
• Did the employer rely on actual business costs rather than speculation?

Businesses still retain flexibility. Some accommodation requests genuinely disrupt operations. Safety-sensitive industries or contractual obligations limit scheduling options. Supportive management resolves issues through conversation.

The size of the employer also matters. A large company with hundreds of employees has more scheduling flexibility than a small shop with three workers.

When Religious Schedule Denials Turn Into Workplace Harassment

Scheduling conflicts tied to faith practices often create tension in the workplace. Coworkers may complain about covering shifts, and supervisors may treat compromises as an inconvenience. 

A manager who repeatedly mocks an employee’s faith practices crosses a legal line. Comments about prayer or clothing show disrespect toward an employee’s beliefs. Surveys show that about 23% of workers report experiencing some form of harassment or abusive behavior on the job, highlighting how conflicts over schedules or beliefs can escalate.

Common examples include:

• Assigning undesirable shifts after an employee requests an accommodation
• Issuing discipline for absences tied to religious observance
• Ignoring requests while granting similar schedule changes to other employees
• Pressuring workers to abandon faith-based practices to keep their jobs

In some workplaces, employers claim a job is open to all beliefs but promote one faith in practice. For example, workers are expected to participate in morning prayer tied to a particular belief system. Forced religious activities or subtle pressure to conform contribute to a hostile work environment.

Courts reviewing hostile work environment claims look at the full pattern of behavior. A single comment rarely leads to litigation, but repeated conduct tied to someone’s faith carries more weight. The authority of the person involved also matters. Harassment from a supervisor carries greater legal significance than casual remarks from a coworker.

Schedule disputes become the starting point of these claims. Coworkers may complain about covering shifts, and supervisors sometimes repeat those complaints during meetings or discussions with staff. Over time, pressure builds around the employee’s faith practices. Courts reviewing these situations look at whether the conduct interfered with the employee’s ability to do their job.

In 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recovered nearly $700 million for workers facing workplace discrimination. More than $469 million of that amount went directly to thousands of employees.

What the Groff Decision Means for New Jersey Workers

The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy reshaped how courts evaluate religious accommodation requests in the workplace. Employers must now show a substantial business hardship. Minor inconveniences or coworker complaints no longer carry the same legal weight.

For workers in New Jersey, these protections operate alongside federal and state law. Employees who face repeated denials of schedule accommodations or discipline tied to their faith practices often have grounds for a discrimination claim.

If your employer denied a religious schedule accommodation or created pressure around your faith practices, contact us today for a free consultation.