In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Gerald Groff, a former postal worker who refused to work Sundays due to his religious observance, holding that employers must provide religious accommodations unless doing so would cause “substantial increased costs” to their business. The Court clarified that the prior “more than a de minimis cost” standard—originating in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977)—was insufficient to justify denying religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the Court, emphasizing that Title VII requires “genuine respect for religious practices” rather than mere token efforts. The decision instructs courts to examine all relevant factors—such as the size and nature of the business, operating costs, practical impact of the accommodation—and not let minimal costs alone stand as the basis for denying an employee’s religious request.

Religious‑liberty advocates celebrated the ruling as a strengthening of protections for workers seeking accommodations based on faith. Meanwhile, labor and human‑resources professionals caution that employers may face greater scheduling and staffing challenges—particularly if accommodating requests shifts burdens onto other employees or disrupts operations. The decision signals a new landscape in which employers will need to carefully document and justify denials of religious accommodations.

Overall, the Groff decision marks a significant shift in employment law. While it doesn’t guarantee accommodation in every case (Groff’s particular claim will still be remanded for further fact‑specific review), it removes a major procedural barrier for religious employees and places a heavier burden on employers to show undue hardship. For Groff, it represents both a personal milestone and a broader message that employees should not be forced to choose between their faith and their job.