Whether the Court should reconsider Hardison and set a proper legal standard for determining what constitutes an 'undue hardship' under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious practices— such as abstaining from work on the Sabbath—unless the employer can demonstrate that it is “unable” to provide an accommodation “without undue hardship” 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). This Court has not addressed the proper interpretation of “undue hardship” since Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), which said a hardship is “undue” if it poses anything more than a de minimis burden on the employer. Four decades of hard experience have shown that courts willingly find nearly any burden an employer invokes to be more than de minimis—especially in cases involving minority religions. As a result, employees of faith across the country have been left without a vital protection that Congress enacted. It is unsurprising, therefore, that several members of this Court, along with the United States in an invited brief, have expressly recognized the need to “grant review in an appropriate case to consider whether Hardison’s interpretation [of undue hardship] should be overruled.” Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S.Ct. 685, 686 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari). This is such a case. The question presented is: Whether the Court should reconsider Hardison and set a proper legal standard for determining what constitutes an “undue hardship” under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000eG)?