In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant decision in favor of Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier from Pennsylvania, in a religious liberty dispute that centers around the accommodation of faith-based requests in the workplace.
At the heart of the case was Groff’s request for an exemption from delivering Amazon packages on Sundays, which he observes as the Sabbath.
His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued before the court in April, advocating for a reevaluation of a 50-year-old precedent that established guidelines for employers to accommodate their employees’ religious practices.
By overturning its 1977 precedent, the Supreme Court has tightened the standard for determining “undue hardship” and potentially made it easier for individual employees to secure religious accommodations in their workplaces.
Another big win for religious liberties.
Supreme Court hands religious freedom win to postal worker who refused to work on Sundayhttps://t.co/thGQcKLyZ4— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) June 29, 2023
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to accommodate their employees’ religious practices unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” for the business. The 1977 case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, introduced the notion that religious accommodations could be denied if they imposed “more than a de minimis cost” on the business.
Streett argued that the court should discard the “de minimis” test, which he believes has been misused by lower courts to deny religious accommodations, and instead follow the plain language of Title VII, which defines “undue hardship” similarly to other federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, contested the court’s potential overturning of Hardison, highlighting the significant body of established case law, including cases protecting religious observance, that would be thrown into uncertainty.
While acknowledging the ambiguity of the de minimis language in isolation, Prelogar contended that the government’s interpretation of the standard over the past four decades has been context-based, depending on the specific cases at hand.
Groff, who worked as a fill-in mail carrier, found himself facing the requirement to work Sunday shifts when the United States Postal Service (USPS) contracted with Amazon for weekend deliveries in 2013.
Initially, Groff reached an agreement with his supervisors to transfer to a branch that did not deliver on Sundays.
However, when that branch also began Sunday deliveries, he was allowed to miss his shifts if he found someone to cover for him. Unfortunately, Groff often struggled to find coverage and missed over two dozen assigned Sunday shifts.
These absences created a tense work environment, affected morale, and burdened other carriers with additional Sunday mail deliveries. Fearing termination for his missed shifts, Groff chose to resign from his position in 2019. Subsequently, with the support of conservative organizations like the First Liberty Institute, Baker Botts LLP, the Church State Council, and the Independence Law Center, Groff filed a federal lawsuit against the Postal Service.
The Supreme Court has now vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion, marking a significant milestone in the ongoing debate over religious accommodations in the workplace.
“This is a landmark victory, not only for Gerald, but for every American. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty said.
Groff also issued a statement, saying, “I am delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace”
