The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued two Marriott entities in Orlando, alleging discrimination for requiring a Seventh-Day Adventist sales executive to work Saturdays, her Sabbath. The agency charges Marriott initially honored the employee’s accommodation request but revoked it over her objection after a management change. The suit claims the employer also altered her work schedule in ways that negatively impacted sales and commissions, compelling her to resign.

While Marriott will likely assert continuing accommodation imposed an “undue hardship” on its operations, establishing that defense has become an uphill battle. For decades, courts found “more than de minimis” (trivial) cost amounted to ample hardship under federal Title VII. The Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision now requires an employer to show accommodation imposes a substantial burden “in the overall context of an employer’s business,” i.e., notably increased costs or operational difficulties, not just minimal inconvenience.  See, Religious Rulings Favors Employees; Supreme Court Requires Accommodation Unless Substantial Cost Burden (September 1, 2023).

California employers face an even higher standard. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), “undue hardship” means a significant difficulty or expense, considering seven factors, including business size, composition of the workforce, company budget,  reasonable notice to the employer and any available reasonable alternative means of accommodation.

Take Aways:

Best practices include: ● regularly re-examine religious accommodations to ensure consistency, especially after leadership changes; ● train managers on the burdens necessary to meet the undue hardship test; ● document every step of the accommodation process; and ● in California recognize the FEHA bar on accommodation is high, and compliance is not optional.

For more information on our help with such audits, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

● Religious Objection to Mandatory Fingerprinting -Employer Must Properly Address Faith-Based Protest (March 9, 2018)
● Accommodating Religious Practices (June, 2015)
● Employer Duties to Fight Religious Prejudice (May 2014)
● Religious Institutions and Employment Discrimination – U.S. Supreme Court Rules Ministers May Not Sue (February 16, 2012)

Tim Bowles
May 16, 2025