Global Courant 2023-04-19 00:04:54
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to make it harder for employers to deny an employee’s request for religious accommodation, a high-stakes civil rights dispute over balancing an individual’s belief requirements with a company’s economic profit .
But in nearly two hours of tense oral arguments, a majority of the judges also questioned the specific allegations of employment discrimination made by a former postal worker who was punished for refusing to work on Sundays when the evangelical Christian said he had kept the Sabbath. celebrates.
Gerald Groff, a Pennsylvania Christian mail carrier, is asking the court to decide whether he was unfairly fired by the US Postal Service after refusing to deliver Amazon packages on Sunday, what he considers the Sabbath. The nine judges heard from Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, who argued that the court should overturn a 50-year-old precedent that serves as a test to determine when employers should make adjustments for their employees’ religious practices.
“It’s important to just stand up for what you believe,” Groff told Fox News after the oral argument.
SUPREME COURT DEFAULTS FOR NEW JERSEY IN CASE AGAINST NEW YORK
Gerald Groff, a former postal worker whose case will be argued in 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)
A federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would constitute an “unnecessary hardship” to the company. But a 1977 Supreme Court case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, says employers can deny religious accommodations to employees if they impose “more than de minimis costs” on the company.
Streett 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 clear language of Title VII, which puts “unnecessary burden” on the same way if it is defined in other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
“The government believes that there is unnecessary hardship when there is loss of efficiency, weekly premium wage payments or denial of a colleague’s shift preference,” Streett said. “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.”
U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar opposed the court overturning Hardison, insisting that nearly half a century of established case law — including cases protecting religious observance — would be “up for grabs” if the court set a new standard for “improper burdens.” would create. 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.
Several judges questioned why the court should not revisit Hardison since both parties to the case seemed to agree that the de minimus language is confusing. Judge Neil Gorsuch looked for “common grounds” between the two parties and asked why the court should not simply clarify that a “minimum cost” cannot be trivial and remand the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed, noting that “no one is defending the test.”
Judge Samuel Alito challenged Prelogar over the government’s claim that lower courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of Hardison have respected minority religions, pointing to amicus briefs filed by Muslim, Hindu and Jewish groups claiming that Hardison had violated their right to violated religious freedom.
SUPREME COURT NOW REMAINS FULL DRUG ACCESS FOR ABORTION
Members of the Supreme Court (LR) Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. , Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh pose in the Justices Conference Room prior to Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s formal inauguration ceremony on September 30, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Collection of the United States Supreme Court via Getty Images)
“In our opinion, they don’t accurately represent how Hardison played out in the lower courts,” Prelogar replied.
Justice Clarence Thomas said companies have been able to accommodate other federal workplace protection laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, but that religious adjustments have often not been applied fairly and consistently.
It could all come down to language and whether the Supreme Court is willing to set a new legal standard for granting workplace requests in the name of religion.
“Do you understand ‘unnecessary hardship’?” asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh of Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “I understand that term in the original statute represents a balance between two important values: one, religious freedom, and the other, the rights of American corporations to thrive, and to thrive, you must be able to make money.”
The court’s liberal judges were more sympathetic to the government’s position. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed their hesitation for the court to redefine how Title VII has been interpreted, noting that in the nearly 50 years since Hardison, Congress has not attempted to change the law or reverse the court’s ruling to deal with.
“Congress has had a chance to change it. Congress hasn’t. You can count on, like a finger, how many times we’ve reversed a legal ruling in that context,” Kagan said.
And while questioning the whole argument over Hardison, Judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the court can’t give “absolute clarity” on these kinds of religious freedom cases” because “it’s all contextual.”
SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CHALLENGES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES TO GO IN COURT
Gerald Groff lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is a former postal worker. The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on his case at the end of June. (First Freedom Institute)
The specific facts of Groff’s case are that he was a stand-in mailman who worked at the United States Post Office when other mailmen were away.
In 2013, USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver packages and required workers to work Sunday shifts for weekend deliveries.
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.
FAITH IN WORK: SUPREME COURT DEBATES EMPLOYERS’ ACCOMMODATIONS FOR LABOR RELIGION
There are openings at the post office in Quarryville, Pennsylvania on March 5, 2023. A former part-time postal worker named Gerald Groff once worked here and (he is a devout Christian) sued the United States Postal Service for religious discrimination because he was forced to work on Sundays. to work. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
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 3rd 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
Groff’s attorneys hope the Supreme Court will reverse the 3rd Circuit Court’s decision by overturning Hardison and the “de minimus cost” standard lower courts that sided with the Post Office.
“The government has not given us today any reason why religious employees should have less accommodation than all those other persons protected by the other statutes who share the same reasonable accommodation and unjustified hardship,” Streett claimed.
The court’s decision is expected at the end of June.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Chris Pandolfo is a writer for Fox News Digital. Send tips to chris.pandolfo@fox.com and follow him on Twitter @ChrisCPandolfo.
