Supreme Court Will Determine Right To Attend Church in Postal Worker Case – ACLJ To File Key Brief
The Supreme Court of the United States recently granted review in Groff v. DeJoy, a critical case involving protection for a postal employee’s religious freedom in the workplace.
As we explained earlier, the case involved a Christian postal worker, Gerald Groff, who wanted to observe Sunday as his day of rest. Though the United States Postal Service initially accommodated his religious convictions and did not assign him any Sunday shifts, the Post Office changed course after it began delivering packages for Amazon.
Other employees started complaining about Mr. Groff’s religious accommodation, so the Post Office said, “No more.” Mr. Groff attempted to compromise with the Post Office by offering to work extra shifts, but the Post Office insisted that he work on Sunday. Mr. Groff chose not to perform these Sunday shifts and subsequently suffered disciplinary measures from the Post Office.
He then filed a lawsuit hoping to preserve his right to a religious accommodation to attend church on Sunday. Eventually, he lost before the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Groff later requested that the Supreme Court hear his case, and the ACLJ filed an amicus brief in support of his claims.
Unfortunately, individuals like Mr. Groff have come under more discrimination in recent years for their religious beliefs. Yet federal law protects the rights of employees to receive a religious accommodation to attend church. Court rulings have taken the teeth out of this law, causing confusion and difficulty in obtaining the accommodation.
Regarding Mr. Groff’s case, the main issue is whether to overrule Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, a 1977 decision that narrowed protection for religious liberty in the workplace. Title VII, the civil rights statute protecting employees from discrimination at work, says that employers must accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
As we previously explained in our amicus brief regarding the dictionary definition of “undue hardship”:
The 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 7 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.
But the Hardison Court held that “undue hardship” means “more than de minimis” – i.e., essentially a trifle. The Court’s clearly wrong definition of a key statutory term stripped the statute of the protection Congress intended to provide.
This ruling has proliferated the discrimination against Christians who wish to achieve a religious accommodation to worship freely on Sunday. An employer only needs to claim a missed shift will result in “more than a trifle” of inconvenience, and an employee will have the religious accommodation denied.
Further, this ruling allows fellow employees to claim that a religious accommodation results in “more than a trifle” of inconvenience for them. As pointed out earlier, this is precisely what happened with Mr. Groff.
We are now preparing a brief on the case’s merits, urging the Supreme Court to overrule Hardison and restore full protection for employee religious freedom in the workplace. We represent several individuals in religious accommodation cases, and the Court’s ruling in this case will impact the entire legal landscape in this area. With your ongoing support, we will continue to fight for religious freedom for employees in their places of work.