Sotomayor, J., concurring
Groff also asks the Court to decide that Title VII requires the United States Postal Service to show “undue hardship to [its] business,” not to Groff’s co-workers. Brief for Petitioner 42 (emphasis added); see 35 F. 4th 162, 176 (CA3 2022) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). The Court, however, recognizes that Title VII requires “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j) (emphasis added). Because the “conduct of [a] business” plainly includes the management and performance of the business’s employees, undue hardship on the conduct of a business may include undue hardship on the business’s employees. See, e.g., Hardison, 432 U. S., at 79–81 (deprivation of employees’ bargained-for seniority rights constitutes undue hardship). There is no basis in the text of the statute, let alone in economics or common sense, to conclude otherwise. Indeed, for many businesses, labor is more important to the conduct of the business than any other factor.
To be sure, some effects on co-workers will not constitute “undue hardship” under Title VII. For example, animus toward a protected group is not a cognizable “hardship” under any antidiscrimination statute. Cf. ante, at 20. In addition, some hardships, such as the labor costs of coordinating voluntary shift swaps, are not “undue” because they are too insubstantial. See 29 CFR §§1605.2(d)(1)(i), (e)(1). Nevertheless, if there is an undue hardship on “the conduct of the employer’s business,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j), then such hardship is sufficient, even if it consists of hardship on employees. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.
