Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2025
Abstract
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the landmark decision of Groff v. DeJoy. Groff will probably be remembered for reversing the Court's 1977 decision of TWA v. Hardison, even though the majority claimed to merely be clarifying that precedent. Hardison seemed to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, such that employers do not have to make accommodations that have a de minimis cost. Groff restored the original meaning to Title VII. Groff held that "Title VII means what it says." And Title VII says that employers must make "reasonable accommodations" for the employee's religious "observances and practices" unless doing so creates an "undue hardship" on the "conduct" of the employer's business.
At the surface level, Groff and Title VII regard the business relationship between employers and employees. However, at a deeper level, there is a third party-labor unions-whose interests are deeply impacted by this antidiscrimination law. This essay explains why labor unions oppose religious workers' accommodations in Title VII cases and how Title VII puts union rights and religious rights in conflict. In particular, religious workers' right to not work on the Sabbath and other religious holidays conflicts with union workers' right to pick days off based on seniority.
Recommended Citation
Seth C. Oranburg, Right to Not Work: Unions and Title VII, 19 FIU L. Rev. 893 (2025).
