A dispute between a former evangelical Christian mail carrier and the U.S. Postal Service presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to expand religious freedoms, but the case has also sparked a debate about whether individuals with religious beliefs are more entitled to weekends off than those without such beliefs.
According to Reuters, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of former Pennsylvania postal carrier Gerald Groff against the lower court’s decision to dismiss his claim of religious discrimination against the United States Postal Service. Due to his observance of the Christian Sabbath, Groff refused to work on Sundays and was disciplined for repeatedly missing Sunday duties. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit.
Given its conservative majority of 6-3, the court has exhibited a pattern of expanding religious freedoms in recent years, typically prevailing with Christian plaintiffs. If the court rules in Groff’s favor, it may become more difficult for employers to refuse employees various religious accommodations.
“The whole point of religious accommodation is you have to make special or favored arrangements in order to have an inclusive workforce,” noted Alan Reinach, one of Groff’s attorneys, according to the newswire.
According to Michael Harper, an employment law expert from Boston University School of Law, if the court rules in Groff’s favor, it could “give a preference to the religious because they get to stay home on their Sabbath or their day of rest,” which would not be extended to nonreligious individuals.
“Whenever you depart from neutral standards, it creates the potential for greater friction in the workplace,” he added.
According to Reuters, postal worker unions have requested that the Supreme Court consider the potential negative impact that religious accommodations for some employees may have on their coworkers.
“A day off is not the special privilege of the religious. Days off, especially on the weekend, are when parents can spend the day with children who are otherwise in school, when people can spend time on the other necessities of life, when the community enjoys a common day of rest for churchgoers and the nonreligious alike,” the American Postal Workers Union noted in a brief to the court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits employment discrimination based on religion as well as other characteristics such as race, sex, and national origin, is central to Groff’s case.
Employers are required to facilitate a worker’s religious observances or practices unless it causes “undue hardship” for the company. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, decided in 1977, the Supreme Court defined undue hardship as anything that imposes a cost on the employer that is greater than “de minimis”
The legal team for Groff is requesting that the Supreme Court overturn the Hardison precedent and require employers to demonstrate “significant difficulty or expense” before refusing to provide an accommodation.
Reuters reported that several groups representing minority religions in the United States, including Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, have informed the Supreme Court that the Hardison standard has unjustly affected them and must be revised.
“By allowing employers to refuse to accommodate employees’ beliefs for almost any reason, Hardison forces devout employees to an impossible daily choice between religious duty and livelihood,” said the Muslim Public Affairs Council in a brief.
The Postal Service, represented by the Biden administration, informed the Supreme Court that there is no need to overturn the Hardison decision because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces Title VII, and numerous lower courts have already interpreted the decision to provide significant protection for religious employees.
More on this story via
But James Phillips, a law professor at Chapman University in California, told Reuters that a “strong majority” or even all nine justices could side with Groff. CONTINUE READING…
