The United States Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy rejected a 50-year precedent regarding the application of Title VII of the United States Civil Rights to requests by private and public employees for Title VII workplace religious accommodations. The article evaluates the impact of 73 U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals decisions decided after Groff to determine whether Groff has had an impact on how lower federal courts have evaluated requests for Title VII workplace religious accommodations. The article also evaluates the role of U.S. District Courts as gatekeepers for Title VII workplace religious accommodation lawsuits. Finally, the article discusses the impact of Groff on the most common types of workplace religious accommodation requests. The article argues that employers will have greater difficulty persuading U.S. District Court to grant motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment to end Title religious accommodation lawsuits.

中文翻译：

---

第七章和格罗夫诉德乔伊 Dejoy （2023）


美国最高法院在 Groff v.DeJoy 拒绝了 50 年的先例，即美国民权第七章适用于私人和公共雇员对第七章工作场所宗教住宿的请求。本文评估了 73 项美国地方法院和美国上诉法院在 Groff 案后做出的裁决的影响，以确定 Groff 是否对下级联邦法院评估第七章工作场所宗教便利请求的方式产生了影响。本文还评估了美国地区法院作为第七章工作场所宗教住宿诉讼的守门人的作用。最后，本文讨论了 Groff 对最常见的工作场所宗教便利请求类型的影响。文章认为，说服雇主将面临更大的困难，说服美国地方法院批准驳回动议或简易判决动议以结束 Title 宗教住宿诉讼。