ACLJ Files Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court To Defend Your Right To Attend Church

Most Americans take for granted the ability to attend church on Sunday. In fact, even those whose employers are open seven days a week are still often able to attend church through religious accommodation granted by the employer.

Federal law protects employees’ rights to religious accommodation to attend worship services. That right has been under attack for a long time, and if the Biden Administration gets its way at the Supreme Court, that attack will continue. We’ve just taken action to fight back and protect that right.

The Founding Fathers listed freedom of religion in the FIRST line of the First Amendment. Do you think it was an accident? The right to worship freely is a fundamental trait of being an American. In fact, the desire for religious freedom motivated many of the Pilgrims to flee to America.

So with America’s rich heritage of religious freedom, why is the Post Office denying a postal worker the protection of the federal law that provides religious accommodation at work to attend worship services?

Very soon, the Supreme Court will decide the scope of that right to religious accommodation to attend worship services. This decision could have significant ramifications for workers across America, and we are fighting on your behalf.

As we previously explained, the Supreme Court has granted review in Groff v. DeJoy, the case where the U.S. Postal Service has refused to allow a postal worker to attend church on Sunday, denying him religious accommodation.

Now this is where the ACLJ comes in. We JUST filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court (our second brief in this case, as we previously asked the high Court to grant review). The right to go to church is fundamental, essential, and must be protected. We detailed exactly why the Court must uphold religious liberty in this case and not allow the law protecting religious accommodation to be minimized into obscurity.

When Mr. Groff first began working for the U.S. Postal Service, he had no issues getting off work on Sunday to attend church. But circumstances changed when the Post Office began delivering Amazon packages on Sunday.

Despite the change, Mr. Groff kept his same work schedule, much to the chagrin of his fellow employees. After his co-workers complained, the Post Office told Mr. Groff that he must work on Sunday.

Mr. Groff tried to compromise by picking up other shifts but to no avail. Ultimately, he chose not to work on Sunday and suffered disciplinary measures from the Post Office. He then filed a lawsuit to preserve his religious accommodation to attend church on Sunday.

Eventually, Mr. Groff lost before the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He later requested that the Supreme Court hear his case. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the matter . . . and here we are. This is a huge opportunity for us to fight for religious freedom.

Much of Mr. Groff’s case centers on whether to overrule Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, a 1977 case that severely limited protection for religious freedom in the workplace. Title VII, which protects employees from discrimination in the workplace, says all employers (with at least 15 employees) must accommodate an employee’s religious habits unless doing so imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

But what exactly is an “undue hardship”? Ah, there’s the rub. As we explained in our amicus brief, at the time the religious accommodation statute was passed:

[t]he contemporary meaning of hardship was “suffering,” “a condition that is difficult to endure,” “deprivation.” E.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1968); Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). Not only must the accommodation impose hardship on the employer, but the hardship must be “undue.” Contemporaneous dictionaries defined “undue” as beyond “what is appropriate or normal,” “excessive.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). To qualify as an “undue” hardship, therefore, the accommodation must impose significant unwarranted costs on the employer’s business. By contrast, “de minimis” meant “very small or trifling.” Id.

Unsurprisingly, the Hardison Court ruled that an “undue hardship” meant “more than de minimis.” In other words, any minimal, trifling inconvenience is enough for an employer to deny a worker religious accommodation.

So a missed shift is inconvenient for your boss? Too bad. You can’t worship on Sunday. Your co-workers don’t like that you get a different day off work? Too bad. You can’t go to church this week.

Such a ridiculous interpretation of “undue hardship” has resulted in numerous hardworking religious Americans – whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or members of other faith traditions – facing undue religious discrimination. Until the matter is resolved, more Americans will be denied their right to religious accommodation to attend church.

At some point, YOUR employer could decide that you need to work on Sunday – or else. This possibility is why the case before the Supreme Court is so important.

The Biden Administration is arguing that it should be able to determine whether an employee’s request will create an undue hardship on the employer. We know from this case what that will look like, and it would be devastating for religious liberty.

Will Biden’s misguided attempts to limit religious liberty win the day? Or will religious freedom – the core principle upon which America was founded – prevail?

The ACLJ will never stop fighting to protect YOUR right to go to church. We represent several clients in similar religious accommodation cases; and with your continued support, we will keep fighting for religious freedom in the workplace.