OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A dispute between a former mail carrier who is an evangelical Christian and the U.S. Postal Service is presenting the Supreme Court with an opportunity to expand religious freedoms, but the case has also sparked a discussion on whether individuals with religious beliefs are more entitled to weekends off from work than those without such beliefs.
As reported by Reuters, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Gerald Groff’s appeal, a former mail carrier from Pennsylvania, regarding the lower court’s decision to dismiss his claim of religious discrimination against the Postal Service. Groff refused to work on Sundays due to his observance of the Christian Sabbath and was disciplined for repeatedly failing to show up for Sunday shifts. As a result, he filed a lawsuit.
In recent years, the court has shown a pattern of broadening religious freedoms, typically siding with Christian plaintiffs, given its 6-3 conservative majority. If the court rules in favor of Groff, it could become more challenging for businesses to deny 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 favor of Groff, 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 non-religious individuals.
“Whenever you depart from neutral standards, it creates the potential for greater friction in the workplace,” he added.
Postal worker unions have asked that the Supreme Court thoughtfully contemplate the potential adversity that religious accommodations for some employees may have on their co-workers, Reuters noted.
“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.
The crux of Groff’s case revolves around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that bars employment discrimination based on religion, as well as other factors such as race, sex, and national origin.
Title VII mandates that employers accommodate a worker’s religious observance or practices unless it results in “undue hardship” for the business. In the 1977 case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Supreme Court defined undue hardship as anything that imposes more than a minor or “de minimis” cost on the employer.
Groff’s legal team is requesting that the Supreme Court overturn the Hardison precedent and mandate that companies demonstrate a “significant difficulty or expense” before refusing to grant an accommodation.
Several groups representing religions in the United States that are in the minority, including Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, have informed the Supreme Court that the Hardison standard has unfairly impacted them and must be revised, Reuters noted.
“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 Biden administration, representing the Postal Service, informed the Supreme Court that there is no necessity to overturn Hardison because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces Title VII, along with many lower courts, have already interpreted the decision to offer significant protection for religious employees.
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.
“This may be one of those religious liberty cases where the right and the left are actually aligned,” Phillips opined.
Groff was employed as a “rural carrier associate” in Quarryville and Holtwood, located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. As part of his job, he was required to substitute for absent career carriers, including on weekends. In 2013, the Postal Service contracted with Amazon.com to deliver packages, which included Sunday deliveries, as an effort to remain profitable.
Despite being assigned to work on Sundays, Groff repeatedly failed to show up for his scheduled shifts. The Postal Service attempted to accommodate Groff by facilitating shift swaps, but their efforts were not always successful. Groff’s repeated absences created tension among other carriers who had to cover his shifts. The Postal Service issued disciplinary letters to Groff, and he eventually resigned in 2019, Reuters explained.
“I hope the Supreme Court reaffirms our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace,” Groff said, according to a statement provided by his legal team.
