U.S. Supreme Court buoys religious employees who seek accommodations at
work
Send a link to a friend
[June 30, 2023]
By Andrew Chung
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday bolstered the ability of
employees to obtain accommodations at work for their religious
practices, reviving a lawsuit by an evangelical Christian former mail
carrier accusing the Postal Service of discrimination after being
disciplined for refusing to show up for work on Sundays.
The 9-0 ruling threw out a lower court's decision rejecting a claim by
Gerald Groff, a former mail carrier in Pennsylvania, that the Postal
Service's actions refusing to exempt him from working on Sundays, when
he observes the Sabbath, violated federal anti-discrimination law.
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has a track
record of expanding religious rights, often siding with Christian
plaintiffs.
The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that
Groff's absences placed too much of a hardship on his co-workers and
employer. The Supreme Court ordered the 3rd Circuit to reconsider the
matter.
Groff's case centered on a federal anti-discrimination law called Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment
discrimination based on religion and other factors including race, sex
and national origin.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Jun/30/images/ads/current/graue_sda_042021.png)
Under Title VII, employers must make allowances for a worker's religious
observance or practices unless that would cause the business "undue
hardship" - which the Supreme Court in a 1977 case called Trans World
Airlines v. Hardison determined to be anything imposing more than a
minor, or "de minimis," cost.
The court in Thursday's ruling clarified the Hardison precedent.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the decision, wrote, "We
hold that showing 'more than a de minimis cost,' as that phrase is used
in common parlance, does not suffice to establish 'undue hardship' under
Title VII."
Alito added, "We think it is enough to say that an employer must show
that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial
increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."
Groff's attorney Aaron Streett praised the ruling, saying, "This is an
important victory for Americans of all faiths, who may now follow their
religious consciences in the workplace."
Groff worked as a "rural carrier associate" in Pennsylvania's Lancaster
County, a job that required him to fill in as needed for absent career
carriers, including on weekends.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/063023PIX/news_q24.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen
in Washington, U.S., April 6, 2023. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File
Photo
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2019/Sep/05/images/ads/current/stclara_lda_SPONSOR_090519.png)
The Postal Service in 2013, in a bid to remain profitable,
contracted with Amazon.com to deliver packages, including on
Sundays.
Groff failed to report for assigned Sunday shifts. Postal Service
officials sought to accommodate Groff by attempting to facilitate
shift swaps, but were not always successful. His absences caused
tension among other carriers who had to cover his shifts, the Postal
Service said. Groff received several disciplinary letters and
resigned in 2019.
The 3rd Circuit last year rejected his claims, finding that
exempting Groff caused "undue hardship" because it strained
co-workers and disrupted workflow.
Groups representing some religions that are in the minority in the
United States including Islam, Judaism and Hinduism had backed Groff
in the case, saying they are disproportionately denied religious
accommodations, forcing them to choose between their religion and
their jobs.
The dispute also sparked debate over whether religious people should
be considered more legally deserving than others to have weekend
days off from work.
Unions representing postal workers had urged the justices to
consider the hardship that religious accommodations have on
co-workers who, for example, lose out on a day to rest or spend with
family when they have to cover for shift gaps that arise due to
requests not to work by religious employees.
The justices have yet to decide another important case argued in
December involving a Christian plaintiff. In that one, the Christian
owner of a web design business is arguing for the right to refuse to
provide services for same-sex marriages and is seeking an exemption
from a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual
orientation and other factors.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Jun/30/images/ads/current/charrons_bch_2022.png) |