CIVIL RIGHTS-RELIGION-REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Groff v. DeJoy, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790 (S. Ct. June 29, 2023) (Alito, J.) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). Based on a line in this Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 84, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1977), many lower courts, including the Third Circuit below, have interpreted “undue hardship” to mean any effort or cost that is “more than . . . de minimis.” In this case, however, both parties—the plaintiff-petitioner, Gerald Groff, and the defendant-respondent, the Postmaster General, represented by the Solicitor General—agree that the de minimis reading of Hardison is a mistake. With the benefit of thorough briefing and oral argument, we today clarify what Title VII requires. Groff sued under Title VII, asserting that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). The District Court granted summary judgment to USPS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66174, 2021 WL 1264030 (ED Pa., Apr. 6, 2021), and the Third Circuit affirmed. The panel majority felt that it was “bound by [the] ruling” in Hardison, which it construed to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.” 35 F. 4th, at 174, n. 18 (quoting 432 U. S., at 84, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113). Under Circuit precedent, the panel observed, this was “not a difficult threshold to pass,” 35 F. 4th, at 174 (internal quotation marks omitted), and it held that this low standard was met in this case. Exempting Groff from Sunday work, the panel found, had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.” Id., at 175. Judge Hardiman dissented, concluding that adverse “effects on USPS employees in Lancaster or Holtwood” did not alone suffice to show the needed hardship “on the employer’s business.” Id., at 177 (emphasis in original). We granted Groff ’s ensuing petition for a writ of certiorari. 598 U. S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 646, 214 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2023). Responding to Dewey and another decision rejecting any duty to accommodate an employee’s observance of the Sabbath, Congress amended Title VII in 1972. Hardison, 432 U. S., at 73-74, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113; id., at 88-89, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Tracking the EEOC’s regulatory language, Congress provided that “[t]he term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j) (1970 ed., Supp. II). Even though Hardison’s reference to “de minimis” was undercut by conflicting language and was fleeting in comparison to its discussion of the “principal issue” of seniority rights, lower courts have latched on to “de minimis” as the governing standard. We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue hardship” in ordinary speech. As we have stressed over and over again in recent years, statutory interpretation must “begi[n] with,” and ultimately heed, what a statute actually says. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, ___, 138 S. Ct. 617, 199 L. Ed. 2d 501 (2018) (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U. S. 69, 74, 143 S. Ct. 665, 214 L. Ed. 2d 434 (2023); Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U. S. ___, ___-___, ___, 140 S. Ct. 768, 206 L. Ed. 2d 103 (2020) (slip op., at 5-6, 9).Here, the key statutory term is “undue hardship.” Even if Title VII said only that an employer need not be made to suffer a “hardship,” an employer could not escape liability simply by showing that an accommodation would impose some sort of additional costs. Those costs would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding the modifier “undue” means that the requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level. We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Hardison, 432 U. S., at 83, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113, n. 14. What is most important is that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test. On the second question presented, both parties agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j); see 35 F. 4th, at 177-178 (Hardiman, J., dissenting). An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself. Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations. See Adeyeye, 721 F. 3d, at 455. This distinction matters. Faced with an accommodation request like Groff ’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.