United States Supreme Court Rules Newar Law Was Right All Along

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a momentous decision protecting employees’ religious liberties in the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious observances and practices unless the employer can prove that doing so would cause an “undue hardship” to its business.   

Since 1977, federal courts have interpreted Title VII’s “undue hardship” provision to mean any cost or effect on an employer that is more than “de minimis”­ (i.e. minimal). In practice, these lower court decisions had enabled employers to deny their employees’ requests for religious accommodation simply because the accommodation minimally inconvenienced the employers’ business.  

In 2004, Kawaljeet Tagore—then, an IRS agent working in the agency’s Houston headquarters—requested the IRS accommodate her Sikh religious beliefs and practices by allowing her to wear a kirpan—a Sikh article of faith that symbolizes a Sikh’s commitment to justice. Many Sikhs practice their faith by wearing a kirpan—which resembles a small sword—sheathed and underneath their clothing.

The IRS steadfastly denied Ms. Tagore’s request to wear her kirpan at work. The IRS based its denial on its contention that Ms. Tagore’s kirpan constituted a “dangerous weapon” because it had a dull blade that was approximately 3 inches long. Yet, the IRS freely allowed its agents to bring box cutters, scissors, letter openers, and other longer and sharper bladed instruments into its Houston headquarters.

In July 2006, the IRS terminated Ms. Tagore because of her refusal to compromise her religious beliefs and work without her kirpan.

In 2009, Ms. Tagrore—through Newar Law and the Sikh Coalition—sued the IRS and the Federal Protective Service (“FPS”) for violating her right to religious accommodation under Title VII  and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).    

In November 2013--after a grueling five year legal battle—the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Ms. Tagore’s favor on her RFRA claim—in part, because on the eve of Mr. Newar’s oral argument in the Fifth Circuit, the FPS relented and revised its “dangerous weapon” rule to create an exception for kirpans.

Yet, despite the FPS’ 11th hour about-face, the 5th Circuit rejected Ms. Tagore’s Title VII religious accommodation claim against the IRS. The 5th Circuit ruled that Ms. Tagore’s kirpan imposed more than a “de minimis” cost on the IRS’ business, despite the undisputed evidence that the IRS freely permitted longer/sharper secular bladed instruments in its workplace.  

Yesterday, in Groff v. LeJoy, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the 5th Circuit’s decision regarding Ms. Tagore’s Title VII claim.   

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower federal courts—including the 5th Circuit—had erred in interpreting Title VII’s “undue hardship” provision to mean that employers need only prove that employees’ requested religious accommodations impose a “de minimis” burden on their business. Rather, the Supreme Court ruled, “undue hardship” means employers must prove that employees’ requested religious accommodations would result in “substantial increased costs” to their business. The Court also made clear that co-workers and customers’ hostility to an employee’s religious practice or observance will not satisfy the “undue hardship” test.  

Under the Supreme Court’s new “undue hardship” test, employers—like the IRS—will now face “substantial” difficulty denying their employees’ legitimate requests for religious accommodation in the workplace.

While Groff comes too late to benefit Ms. Tagore, she and we are extremely gratified that her fight for religious liberty over a decade ago paved the way for Americans of all religious faiths to freely practice their religion in the workplace.

Of course, we are also delighted the Supreme Court concluded that Newar Law was right all along.