By JESSICA GRESKO
The Supreme Court in Washington has made a significant ruling on worker protections. In a unanimous decision, the justices emphasized that workers who request religious accommodations, such as taking time off for religious observance, deserve to have their requests granted, unless the employer can demonstrate that granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs for the business.
The court clarified that businesses cannot simply cite minor costs, known as “de minimis” costs, to reject religious accommodation requests. Both sides in the case agreed that businesses needed to provide more substantial evidence.
The case that prompted the ruling involved a mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania who objected to delivering Amazon packages on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Initially, the Postal Service tried to find substitutes for the employee, but this was not always possible, resulting in additional workload for others. The mail carrier ultimately quit and filed a lawsuit for religious discrimination.
This case is the latest religious confrontation to reach the Supreme Court, which has shown sensitivity to the concerns of religious plaintiffs in recent years. Last year, the court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach who wanted to pray on the field after games.
Other recent religious cases have also received wide agreement among the justices. For example, there was a case upholding a cross-shaped monument on public grounds, and a ruling that Boston had violated the free speech rights of a conservative activist by refusing his request to fly a Christian flag on a City Hall flagpole.
The latest case involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices, unless it would be an “undue hardship” for the business. However, a 1977 Supreme Court case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, stated that employers can deny religious accommodations if they impose more than a de minimis cost on the business.
During the arguments, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Postal Service, argued that the Hardison case actually requires employers to show more when denying an accommodation.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion, disagreed with this interpretation, stating that some lower courts have misunderstood the Hardison case. He emphasized that employers must demonstrate that granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs specific to their business.
The Biden administration has noted that requests for religious accommodations usually involve schedule changes, such as taking the Sabbath off or midday prayer breaks, as well as exemptions from dress codes or grooming policies. Requests may also involve displaying a religious symbol in the workplace.
In relation to the specific dispute in this case, the justices sent it back to a lower court for further consideration. The case centers around Gerald Groff, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. Groff worked as a fill-in mail carrier on days when other carriers were off.
When Amazon.com partnered with the Postal Service and began requiring carriers to deliver packages on Sundays, Groff objected. He initially transferred to a rural post office that did not have Sunday deliveries, but eventually, that post office was also required to deliver on Sundays. Groff’s absences on Sundays meant that another carrier had to work, causing tension and morale issues. It also meant that other carriers had to handle more Sunday mail than usual.
In 2019, Groff resigned before being fired and filed a lawsuit against the Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious practices. Previous courts ruled against him, but now his case will be reconsidered following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
After the ruling, Groff expressed gratitude that his case was heard, stating, “I hope this decision allows others to be able to maintain their convictions without living in fear of losing their jobs because of what they believe.”
The case is Groff v. DeJoy, 22-174.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
