Global Courant
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania postman in a major religious freedom dispute over how far employers should go to accommodate faith-based requests in the workplace.
Gerald Groff, a Pennsylvania Christian mail carrier, asked the court to decide whether the US Postal Service could require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sunday, which he considers the Sabbath. His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued in April that the court should review a 50-year-old precedent that established a test to determine when employers should make adjustments for their employees’ religious practices.
In its ruling for the government official, the Supreme Court overturned its 1977 precedent that employers should “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious beliefs and practices, so long as it did not cause “unnecessary hardship” to the company.
The new decision tightens the standard for “unnecessary hardship” and could make it easier for some individual employees to secure religious accommodation in the workplace.
SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: HOW CALIFORNIA VIEWS THE IMPACT
Gerald Groff, a former postal worker whose case was heard by the Supreme Court, stands by a roadside sign reading “Now Hiring” at the United State Postal Service Wednesday, March 8, 2023, in Quarryville, Pennsylvania, during a televised interview. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would place “undue hardship” on the company. A 1977 Supreme Court case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, said employers could deny religious accommodations to employees if they imposed “more than de minimis costs” on the company.
Groff’s lawyer argued that the court should scrap the “de minimus” test, which he suggested has been misused by lower courts to deny religious adaptations, in favor of the plain language of Title VII, which “creates an unnecessary burden would define in the same way. it is defined in other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
SUPREME COURT TAKES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CASE INVOLVED WITH POSTAL WORKER WHO REFUSED TO WORK ON SUNDAYS
“The government believes that there is unnecessary hardship when there is loss of efficiency, weekly premium wages or denial of a colleague’s shift preference,” Streett said during oral arguments to the judges. “So under the government test, a diabetes worker could get snack breaks under the ADA, but not prayer breaks under Title VII, because that could lead to lost efficiency.”
READ THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar had argued against the court’s overturning of Hardison, stressing that nearly half a century of established case law — including cases protecting religious observance — would be “up for grabs” if the court sets a new standard for ” would create undue burdens”. She seemed to admit that the de minimus language can be unclear in isolation, and argued that the government’s interpretation of the standard for more than four decades has been context-based on the specific cases at hand.
SUPREME COURT SIGNALS THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR EMPLOYEES TO CLAIM RELIGIOUS HOUSING
Gerald Groff in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on March 8, 2023. He demonstrates how mail carriers drive from the passenger seat (left hand on the steering wheel and left foot on the gas and brake, right hand free to place mail in the boxes). Groff, a former part-time postal worker, is a devout Christian and sued the United States Postal Service for religious discrimination because he was forced to work on Sundays. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Image)
“To be sure, as the Solicitor General points out, some lower courts have understood that the protections for religious adherents are greater than ‘more than… minimalmight suggest when read in isolation,” Judge Samuel Alito wrote. “But a bevy of diverse religious organizations have told this Court that the minimal test has blessed the denial of even minor accommodation in many cases, making it more difficult for members of minority religions to enter the labor market.”
“We love that show ‘more than one minimal expense’, as that expression is used in common parlance, is not sufficient to establish ‘unnecessary hardship’ under Title VII. hardison cannot be reduced to that one sentence.”
Groff was a stand-in mailman who worked at the United States Post Office when other mailmen were off.
In 2013, USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver packages and required workers to work Sunday shifts for weekend deliveries.
SUPREME COURT REJECTS CONFIRMATIVE ACTION ON UNIVERSITIES USING RACE IN ADMISSION DECISIONS
Gerald Groff lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is a former postal worker. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Groff, making it easier for employees to claim faith-based workplace adjustments. (First Freedom Institute)
Initially, he was able to arrange with his superiors to transfer to another branch that did not deliver on Sundays. When that branch also started making deliveries on Sundays, Groff was allowed to miss his shifts, provided he could find someone to cover for him. However, Groff was often unable to do this, missing more than two dozen assigned Sunday services.
Officials said Groff’s absence created a tense environment and contributed to morale problems. It also meant that other carriers had to deliver more Sunday mail than they otherwise would.
Believing he would be fired for missing Sunday services, Groff resigned in 2019. He then obtained representation from the conservative First Liberty Institute, Baker Botts LLP, the Church State Council, and the Independence Law Center, and filed a federal lawsuit. against PostNL.
Groff claims that USPS could have met his beliefs by scheduling shifts so he didn’t have to work on Sundays. But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May 2022 that USPS would suffer undue hardship if it took further action to accommodate Groff.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.
“I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace,” Groff wrote in an op-ed for Fox News Digital. “More than that, the judges upheld my decision to trust in God by honoring the Day of the Lord. I am grateful to everyone who has shown their support – especially my family, community, colleagues and neighbors.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Chris Pandolfo is a writer for Fox News Digital. Send tips to [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @ChrisCPandolfo.
