The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (also referred to as the “Court” or the “Seventh Circuit”) recently ruled that a plaintiff’s religious accommodation claim should proceed to trial, applying the heightened “undue hardship” standard established in 2023 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (“Groff“). In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (“Kluge“), the Court concluded that there were factual disputes over whether the plaintiff’s last-name-only accommodation imposed an undue hardship upon the employer.
Case Background
As we previously reported in this alert, the plaintiff in Kluge was a high school orchestra teacher who expressed religious objections to referring to transgender students by names or pronouns that were inconsistent with those assigned at birth. The plaintiff requested an accommodation to address all students by their last names only, and his school district initially granted that request.
During the school year, the school district received complaints that the last-name-only practice was disrespectful, made students feel singled out and caused discomfort in the classroom. As a result, the school district advised the plaintiff that for the following school year, he would have to refer to students by the names listed in the school district’s database. The plaintiff resigned and later filed a civil lawsuit against his former employer.
Previously, and before the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff, the district court and an earlier Seventh Circuit panel applied the de minimis undue hardship standard from the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World America v. Hardison and concluded that the last-name-only accommodation placed an undue hardship on the school district’s mission.
After Groff clarified that an employer must show that granting a religious accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business,” the Court vacated its previous decision and remanded the case to the district court to apply the new standard. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, concluding that providing the accommodation created an undue hardship.
Analysis
Applying Groff on appeal, the Seventh Circuit held there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s last-name-only accommodation constituted an undue hardship to the school district.
The Court found material factual disputes over whether the last-name-only accommodation disrupted the school environment. It explained that, even if students experienced emotional injuries, those injuries must be objectively reasonable to qualify as an undue hardship in accordance with Groff. The Court found in Kluge that the record contained conflicting evidence as to whether the last-name-only accommodation itself caused the students’ alleged emotional distress.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected the school district’s argument that the accommodation exposed it to legal liability, finding no evidence that the accommodation subjected transgender students to differential treatment or stigma.
In addition, the Seventh Circuit noted that a factual dispute existed regarding the sincerity of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs, pointing to evidence that the plaintiff teacher used students’ preferred names during a school-sponsored event.
However, the Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, finding he failed to show that his protected activity was the “but-for” cause of his termination or to rebut the school district’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
Practical Takeaways
- Under Groff, employers must show that the burden of granting an accommodation is substantial, and not merely more than a de minimis cost, in order to lawfully deny a religious accommodation request under Title VII.
- Any claimed undue hardship must be objectively reasonable to the employer’s business, not subjectively perceived.
If you have any questions, please contact:
- Larry Jensen at ljensen@hallrender.com or (248) 457-7850;
- Kathryn Jones at kejones@hallrender.com or (248) 457-7846; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
