The Religion Law Quiz Podcast

Quiz 106 What were the key facts of the 2020 Tanzin decision?

The Supreme Court’s Tanzin v. Tanvir decision is not one that is widely known.  But the potential impact of that decision is big given its holding.  (Don’t worry, we’ll cover that in a future Religion Law Quiz.)  What were the key facts of the Tanzin decision? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court summarized those facts:
 
Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who claim that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities. Respondents sued various agents in their official capacities, seeking removal from the No Fly List. They also sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages. According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost.
More than a year after respondents sued, the Department of Homeland Security informed them that they could now fly, thus mooting the claims for injunctive relief. The District Court then dismissed the individual-capacity claims for money damages, ruling that RFRA does not permit monetary relief.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020). 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another enlightening episode of the 'Religion Law Podcast', where your understanding of religious freedom and various religion law-related issues will be refined through an intriguing question-and-answer setup. Guiding you on this informative journey is none other than your host, Michael Fielding.
This episode unravels the complexities of Religion Law Quiz number 106, where we dissect the lesser-known but highly influential Supreme Court decision, Tansin v. Tanvir. The primary focus of our discussion revolves around enumerating and understanding the key facts of this case—a feat possible only if one is familiar with the actual verdict. But worry not, for today, these facts are laid bare for your perusal, quoted verbatim from the Supreme Court records.
In this riveting episode, you will learn about the implications of this case involving Muslims who were removed from the no-fly list, the district court's decision to dismiss their need for injunctive relief and monetary damages claims, further escalating this issue to appeal at the Supreme Court. This leads to the pivotal question: Can someone whose rights have been infringed under RIFRA sue for and obtain monetary relief?
Join us as we gear up to explore this issue and more in our upcoming quizzes. Remember, our quizzes serve educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you find our episode helpful, don’t hesitate to share it and leave a review. Till our next meeting, strive to be an influence for good!

Quiz 105 How does RFRA define "Government"?

A lot of times in life we just generically refer to certain things.  But sometimes it is important to stop and ask: What specifically is the definition of that particular thing?  That concept applies to religion law related matters.  Frequently we talk about the “government” what exactly does that mean?  More specifically, how does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) define “government”? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: You’ll see the definition highlighted in yellow below from the following citation from the Supreme Court. 
 
RFRA secures Congress’ view of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment, and it provides a remedy to redress violations of that right. Congress passed the Act in the wake of this Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885–890, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which held that the First Amendment tolerates neutral, generally applicable laws that burden or prohibit religious acts even when the laws are unsupported by a narrowly tailored, compelling governmental interest. See § 2000bb(a). RFRA sought to counter the effect of that holding and restore the pre-Smith “compelling interest test” by “provid[ing] a claim ... to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” §§ 2000bb(b)(1)–(2). That right of action enables a person to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” § 2000bb–1(c). A “ ‘government’ ” is defined to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States.” § 2000bb–2(1).
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020). 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, we delve into understanding religious freedom and various religion law-related matters through a thought-provoking and succinct question-and-answer session.
Your host, Michael Fielding, presents to you Religion Law Quiz number 105. Throughout our lives, we often casually refer to specific terms without really understanding their precise definitions. Today, we delve into a widely used term in religion law-related matters: 'Government.' Have you ever wondered how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) defines government? Let's find out together!
The episode navigates the Supreme Court's interpretation in the 2020 Tansin v. Tanvir decision, discussing how RFRA safeguards the right to free religious exercise under the First Amendment and provides remedies for violations of this right. Understanding what 'Government' encompasses according to RFRA involves not just the federal government, but branches, departments, agencies, instrumentalities, and an official person acting under U.S. law.
One crucial feature to remember is the limited jurisdiction of RFRA - it only applies to the federal government and does not extend to state and local governments. Several states, however, have enacted their own RFRA laws.
This short yet profound discussion enhances our understanding of Government under RFRA, paving a clear legal path through the intricate world of religion law. Remember, these quizzes aim solely to educate. Please tune in for more insightful discussions, share the episode if you find it helpful, and leave a review. Keep influencing for good!

Quiz 104 -- Prior Review -- 1990 Smith decision and RFRA

What did the Supreme Court hold in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) and (b) what did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) seek to do in response to the Supreme Court’s Smith decision? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  Here is how the Supreme Court answered that decision in 2020. 
 
RFRA secures Congress’ view of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment, and it provides a remedy to redress violations of that right. Congress passed the Act in the wake of this Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885–890, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which held that the First Amendment tolerates neutral, generally applicable laws that burden or prohibit religious acts even when the laws are unsupported by a narrowly tailored, compelling governmental interest. See § 2000bb(a). RFRA sought to counter the effect of that holding and restore the pre-Smith “compelling interest test” by “provid[ing] a claim ... to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” §§ 2000bb(b)(1)–(2). That right of action enables a person to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” § 2000bb–1(c).
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020)
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast where we delve into the depth of the Tanzan v. Tanvir 2020 Supreme Court decision, and its ties with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), set within the context of religious freedom and law in the United States.
In this episode, hosted by Michael Fielding, you will be taken on a journey back in time to understand the landscape of federal laws on religious freedom, especially centered on the Supreme Court decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990. We investigate the role played by RFRA in response to the Smith decision within our compelling quiz format.
This episode also offers you the opportunity to assess your knowledge on some past discussions related to religion law quizzes. Using direct quotes from the Supreme Court's 2020 Tanzan v. Tanvir decision, we break down Congress's view on the right to free exercise under the First Amendment, and the provided remedies to redress violations of that right.
Furthermore, we'll touch upon how RFRA came into existence to counter the implications of the Smith decision by restoring the pre-Smith compelling interest test to provide a claim to persons whose religious exercise is impeded by government (substantially).
To wrap it up, our quiz will leave you intrigued and informed about what forms of damages or appropriate relief are available from the federal government in case of a RFRA violation, lined up thematically for future podcasts.
This episode is not just an educational tool but also a platform that prompts you to become an influence for good. We hope you find it helpful, and if you do, please share it and leave a review! Until we meet again.

Quiz #103 How would you explain RFRA to a kindergartner?

How would you explain RFRA (i.e., the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to a kindergartener? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  Here’s how the Supreme Court succinctly summarized RFRA in 2020:
 
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the Federal Government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise, absent a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means. 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020)
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, your host Michael Fielding dives into the concept of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) through the prism of the 2020 Supreme Court's Tanzan v. Tanvir decision.
The RFRA is a significant statute that has been adopted by several, but not all, states in the US. The episode revolves around a unique question: How would you explain the RFRA to a kindergartner? Break down complex, legal terms into easy-to-understand language is a valuable skill, as it suggests a deep understanding of the concept at hand.
Drawing from the court's words, Fielding throws light on the act's purpose - it prohibits the federal government from imposing heavy burdens on religious practices unless there's an extremely compelling reason, and it is pursued through the least restrictive means available. In simpler words, it requires the government to minimize its interference in religious practices.
Short but substantial, this episode offers valuable insights into the RFRA and its implications on the practice of religion in the US. It is designed to enhance listeners' understanding and equip them with the skill to articulate this complex concept in simple terms. Remember, sharing knowledge can make a big difference in your community.

Quiz #102 Unpacking the Tanzin v. Tanvir Supreme Court Decision

In what year did the Supreme Court issue its decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir and what was the issue that the Supreme Court decided in that case?  
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in 2020.  Here’s how the Supreme Court described the issue it was facing:
 
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the Federal Government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise, absent a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means. 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. It also gives a person whose religious exercise has been unlawfully burdened the right to seek “appropriate relief.” The question here is whether “appropriate relief ” includes claims for money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
 
Welcome to the Religion Law Podcast, your go-to platform for comprehending religious freedom and hot topics related to religious law. In this episode, our host Michael Fielding delves into a significant yet underreported Supreme Court decision, Tanzan v. Tanvir. This decision was executed in 2020, a period where global attention was predominantly focused on the COVID-19 pandemic.
The crux of the Tanzan v. Tanvir issue pertains to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which prohibits the federal government from encumbering religious exercise without a compelling urge exercised via the least restrictive means. It also entitles an individual whose religious exercise has been unlawfully compromised to seek apt relief. However, the moot point brought forth by Tanzan v. Tanvir is the scope of "appropriate relief" under RFRA, examining the permit of individuals to sue government officials for financial damages in their personal capacity.
Join us as we unfold the implications of the Tanzan v. Tanvir decision and understand its potential consequences on religious freedom. Remember, our Religion Law quizzes are designed purely for educational enlightenment and should not be considered legal advice. If this episode has enlightened you in any way, please share it and don't forget to leave a review. Let's endorse the habit of being an advocate for good. We'll see you again for Quiz number 103. Stay enlightened. Music.

Quiz #101 Satisfying the "undue hardship" test of Title VII religious accommodations

True or False: An employer can satisfy Title VII’s “undue hardship” test by assessing the reasonableness of a particular accommodation and determining that such a request is unreasonable and would create an undue hardship for the employer. 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  FALSE.  Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice rather than just the employer assessing the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.  Here is what the Supreme Court said:
 
Second, as the Solicitor General's authorities underscore, Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee's practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations. See Adeyeye, 721 F.3d at 455; see also Brief for United States 30, 33, 39. This distinction matters. Faced with an accommodation request like Groff ’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.
Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296–97, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023) (emphasis added). 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Our latest episode of the Religion Law Podcast offers a fresh insight into the complicated world of religious freedom and the law. Hosted by Michael Fielding, this specific episode, titled "Religion Law Quiz 101: Understanding Title VII and Religious Accommodations," dives into the important Supreme Court decision Graffi DeJoy, which pertains to Title VII and the provision of religious accommodations for employees.
The episode sets the stage with a true or false question about whether an employer can satisfy Title VII's undue hardship test by simply assessing the reasonableness of a particular accommodation. The Supreme Court ruling, dissected in this episode, declares the question false - Title VII requires an employer not just to assess the reasonableness of a given accommodation, but to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice itself.
Fielding relates this Supreme Court decision to the real-world case of an evangelical Christian working for the Postal Service who requested religious accommodation for Sabbath day observance. This scenario is used to unravel the legal complexities of the 'undue hardship' concept and discuss the integral distinction Title VII enforces for employers when accommodating the practices of their employees
While this podcast provides essential educational content, it does not replace legal advice. This episode encourages listeners to understand their rights and responsibilities under the law, and invites further action should a listener confront legal challenges related to religion and employment.
Religion Law Podcast delivers valuable knowledge regarding religious freedoms and legal responsibilities, making it indispensable for everyone interested in the law of religious freedom.

Quiz #100 Are there "off limits" points of inquiry for an "undue hardship" determination?

In Religion Law Quiz #99 we learned “that ‘undue hardship’ in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test.”  Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023).  But when a court is making this determination, are there certain points that are “off-limits” to the court’s determination?  If so, what are they? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  Yes.  A hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.”  Here is what the Supreme Court specifically said:
 
On this point, the Solicitor General took pains to clarify that some evidence that occasionally is used to show “impacts” on coworkers is “off the table” for consideration. Id., at 102. Specifically, a coworker's dislike of “religious practice and expression in the workplace” or “the mere fact [of] an accommodation” is not “cognizable to factor into the undue hardship inquiry.” Id., at 89–90. To the extent that this was not previously clear, we agree. An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself. See id., at 89 (argument of Solicitor General) (such an approach would be “giving effect to religious hostility”); contra, EEOC v. Sambo's of Georgia, Inc., 530 F.Supp. 86, 89 (ND Ga. 1981) (considering as hardship “[a]dverse customer reaction” from “a simple aversion to, or discomfort in dealing with, bearded people”).
Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023) (emphasis added).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
 
 
This episode of the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding, is milestone number 100 in the Religion Law Quiz series. The podcast continues the discussion on the monumental Groff v. DeJoy case, focusing on the concept of 'undue hardship' as stipulated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Michael poses a question for listeners to ponder: When determining what constitutes 'undue hardship' in the context of an employer's religious accommodations, are there factors that courts should not consider? As per the Supreme Court's ruling, any hardship attributed to employee animosity towards a particular religion, religion in general, or the notion of religious accommodation cannot be deemed 'undue'.
The episode offers a clearer understanding of the balance required between maintaining employees' religious freedoms and the operational needs of a business. Michael explains this complex issue with an imaginary scenario in which a majority of employees harbor resentment towards a particular religion or religious practice. The Supreme Court starkly emphasizes that such employee negativity cannot justify a refusal for religious accommodation.
The podcast navigates through the finer points of religion law and religious freedom with the aim of educating listeners. The discussion ends with the anticipation of the final episode on Groff v. DeJoy in the next Religion Law Quiz. The episode asserts that protecting religious freedoms in the workspace promotes an inclusive environment, hence reducing the chance of Title VII being at war with itself.

Quiz #99 Is common sense employed to determine an "undue hardship" under Title VII?

True or False: In the context of Title VII, whether a requested religious accommodation creates an “undue hardship” should be determined by the court applying a common-sense test inquiring whether the hardship is substantial in the context of the employer’s business. 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: True.  Here’s what the Supreme Court said in that regard. 
 
What is most important is that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test.
 
Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2296, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023)
  
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
 
Welcome to this episode of Religion Law Podcast, your go-to place for understanding religious freedom and legal issues related to religion through a unique, interactive quiz-based format. In this episode, we delve into the world of religious accomodation at work. We unfold how courts understand these accommodations and what determines if such accommodations could be an undue hardship for the employers within the Title VII context, all inspired by the Supreme Court's 2023 Graf v. DeJoy decision.
Your host, Michael Fielding starts with a fun trivia recalling his favorite college football player, Jason Buck, to set a lighter tone. Soon after, we move to the serious territory of Title VII - a hot topic in religion law. You'll be presented with a true or false quiz about whether a common sense test can be applied by a court to identify if a religious accommodation request involves significant hardship in correlation to an employer's business.
Find out the Supreme Court's perspective on this matter and understand what this practically implies for employees seeking religious accommodation and for employers trying to balance accommodating employee rights and running their businesses effectively. Also, let Michael clear your doubts about how big of an 'undue hardship' is 'too big' and when is it considered enough to exempt the employers from providing the accommodation.
However, remember this episode, though informative, doesn't substitute for legal advice as Michael is a guide through these legal waters and not an employment attorney.
Stay with us till the end where Michael also suggests the possibility of diving deep into Title VII in the future episodes. Stay tuned for the next milestone episode - the 100th quiz of the series! Share this episode if you find it helpful and leave a review. Continue being an influential force!

Quiz #98 the Heuristic that Groff v. DeJoy corrected

A heuristic is a mental shortcut that we use to reach decisions.  We all use heuristics and they can be very helpful.  But sometimes our use of a heuristic can be an Achilles heel because our generation and use of the heuristic overlooks critical details which, when they are considered, helps us realize that the heuristic that we used and created is incorrect. 
 
With that concept in mind, when you analyze the Supreme Court’s recent Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023) decision it becomes clear that several courts had previously employed a heuristic with respect to a prior Supreme Court case.  The Groff decision identified that heuristic (although the Supreme Court didn’t call it such) and then it pointed to several key aspects in its prior decision which showed that the heuristic phrase was incorrect.  For our two-part quiz today, (a) what was the heuristic phrase that was used and (b) what was the name of the prior decision from which that heuristic phrase came from? 
 
(If you get both these answers right then you must be an L&E rockstar!)
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  The heuristic phrase was “more than a de minimis cost” and it came from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977).  Consider what the Supreme Court said:
 
We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer's “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61–62 (argument of Solicitor General). This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue hardship” in ordinary speech.
Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2294 (2023).
 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
 
Welcome to another engaging episode of the Religion Law Podcast, exploring the realm of religious freedom and other religion law-related subjects. This episode, number 98, continues with our discussion on the 2023 Graf v. DeJoy Supreme Court decision, uncovering a different perspective with a deeper insight.
Hosted by Michael Fielding, this episode explores the concept of heuristic, a mental shortcut, and how it occasionally leads to overlooking crucial details that could reshape our understanding of a situation or event. Analyzing the Supreme Court's Groff v. DeJoy decision reveals how several courts regularly employed a heuristic approach to a prior Supreme Court case, resulting in the Supreme Court pointing out the overlooked aspects in its prior decision.
Fielding also discusses the implications and practical takeaways from the Groff v. DeJoy decision on employers and employees. The Supreme Court held that under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the business. It emphasizes that an employer must prove a substantial burden should they wish to deny a religious accommodation under Title VII. Misinterpretation of the heuristic phrase "more than a de minimis cost," leads courts to focus on one small phrase from the Transworld Airlines vs. Hardison decision, rather than the big picture.
Through an understanding of the overarching requirement for substantial burden, the Supreme Court offered a corrected perspective. Life lesson in this episode revolves around the importance of avoiding myopic perspectives and viewing situations through a more encompassing lens. Journey with us as we dissect legal decisions, helping you become a labor and employment superstar.
Enjoy the deep dives, insights, and life lessons from the world of law and religion. Discover the valuable perspectives that could reshape your understanding, not just in law, but in life too.

Quiz #97 What was the main holding of Groff v DeJoy?

In June 2023 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Groff v. DeJoy ruling on religious accommodations under Title VII.  In a nutshell, what was the main holding of the Groff decision? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer:  Here’s how the Supreme Court answers that question in the syllabus:
 
Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Pp. 2287 – 2297.
 
Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2281 (2023).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
 
 
Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast, a platform where you learn about religious freedom and other religion law-related topics in a short, engaging Q&A format. In this episode, our host, Michael Fielding, breaks down the revolutionary Supreme Court Decision - Groff v. DeJoy. This case defined the parameters of how religious accommodations should be handled under Title VII.
Religion Law Quiz number 97 unravels a key legal precedent - the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. Listen as Michael Fielding intricately dissects the facts of the case involving an evangelical Christian working for the Postal Service who was unwilling to work on Sundays. Despite the case being ruled against the employee in both the district court and the appellate court level, things took a turn in the Supreme Court.
A particularly intriguing discussion ensues as we discuss the big reveal - the Supreme Court’s ruling drawn from the court's syllabus. It held that if an employer denies a religious accommodation, they must demonstrate that granting such an accommodation would lead to substantially increased costs related to the conduct of their particular business. This core discussion offers listeners rich insight into the nuances of handling requests for religious accommodations within the workforce.
Bringing the law to life, the episode draws parallels with everyday situations, such as the host's daughter managing her work schedule alongside her Sunday church commitments. The anecdote underscores how religious accommodations can be managed without significant disruption or cost to businesses, casting a new, practical light on the Supreme Court ruling.
In conclusion, this episode invites listeners to further expand their understanding of the complex interplay between religion, law, and business. Catch us on Quiz number 98, where our exploration of Graff v. DeJoy continues.