On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Groff v. Dejoy, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), that marks a notable shift in how courts will analyze religious discrimination claims, requiring employers to show that religious accommodations would constitute a “substantial burden in the overall context of [their] business” in order to deny them.
Ohio’s school districts have long recognized the requirement not to discriminate against employees on the basis of certain protected classes. Discrimination related to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity/parental leave constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. Schools have to treat a woman who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same as any other disabled employee.
On March 7, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their transgender or transitioning status, notwithstanding the employer’s sincere religious objections.
With less than a month remaining in the current term, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an opinion on Monday that could have potential employment implications for Ohio school districts.
In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, a clothing store declined to hire Samantha Elauf, a 17-year-old Muslim, because a religious headscarf that she wore to her interview conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress code policy.
