Page:Groff v. DeJoy.pdf/19

14 gloss on “de minimis.” And in other cases, courts have rejected accommodations that the EEOC’s guidelines consider to be ordinarily required, such as the relaxation of dress codes and coverage for occasional absences.

Members of this Court have warned that, if the de minimis rule represents the holding of Hardison, the decision might have to be reconsidered. Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 593 U. S. ___ (2021) (, dissenting from denial of certiorari); Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 589 U. S. ___ (2020) (, concurring in denial of certiorari). Four years ago, the Solicitor General—joined on its brief by the EEOC—likewise took that view. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., O. T. 2019, No. 18–349, p. 20 (“Contrary to Hardison, therefore, an ‘undue hardship’ is not best interpreted to mean ‘more than a de minimis cost’ ”).

Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the