cnn
,
The Supreme Court appeared to side with a former mail carrier, an evangelical Christian, who says the U.S. Postal Service failed to honor his request not to work Sunday.
A lower court had ruled against worker Gerald Groff, saying his request would impose an “undue burden” on the USPS and lower workplace morale when other employees would have to pick up his shifts.
But during oral arguments Tuesday, after nearly two hours of oral argument, there appeared to be a consensus that the appeals court was too quick to rule against Groff.
There appears to be, as Justice Elena Kagan put it, a degree of “kumbaya-ing” at times among the justices on the bench.
But when the justices tried to settle on a test that lower courts could use to clarify how far employers should go to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs, differences arose when Groff A lawyer suggested that the court overturn the decades-old precedent. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed open to this possibility.
Critically, however, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were sympathetic to arguments made by the Postal Service that granting Groff’s request could demoralize other employees. Kavanaugh said that “morale” among employers is critical to the success of any business. And several judges agreed on the financial difficulties the USPS has faced for years.
Groff, who lives in Pennsylvania, worked as a rural carrier associate at the United States Postal Service in 2012, a position that provides coverage for absent carrier employees who have earned the ability to take weekend leave. Rural carrier partners have been told they need flexibility.
In 2013, Groff’s life changed when the USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays. Groff’s Christian religious beliefs prevent him from working on Sundays.
The Post Office considered some accommodations for Groff such as offering to adjust her schedule so she could come to work after religious services, or telling her she should see if other employees could work her shifts. . At some point, the postmaster himself made the deliveries because it was difficult to find employees willing to work on Sundays. Ultimately, the USPS suggested Groff choose a different day to observe the Sabbath.
The atmosphere with his coworkers was tense and Groff said he faced progressive discipline. In response, they filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is charged with enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against an employee because of religion.
Groff ultimately left in 2019. In a resignation letter, he said he was “unable to find a favorable employment environment with the USPS that will respect his religious beliefs.”
Groff filed a lawsuit arguing that the USPS violated Title VII – a federal law that makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee based on his or her religion. To bring a claim under the law, an employee must show that he or she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, must notify his or her employer, and must be disciplined if he or she fails to comply.
Under the law, the burden shifts to the employer. The employer must show that they have made a good faith effort to “reasonably accommodate” the employee’s employment or demonstrate that such an adjustment would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer.
District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl, appointed by former President Barack Obama. ruled against groffBelieving that his request not to work on Sundays would cause “undue hardship” to the USPS.
Third US Circuit Court of Appeals decision confirmed In a 2-1 opinion.
The Third Circuit wrote in its opinion last year, “Exempting Groff from working Sundays cost the USPS more than minimal costs because it virtually imposed an imposition on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and harmed employees.” Lowered morale.”
“The accommodation Groff sought (exemption from Sunday work),” the court said, “would impose an undue hardship on the USPS.”
One dissenting judge, Thomas Hardiman, offered a road map for judges seeking to rule in Groff’s favor. The main thrust of his dissent was that the law requires USPS to show how the proposed accommodation would harm “the business” – not Groff’s coworkers.
“Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night prevented Gerald Groff from completing his scheduled round,” wrote Hardiman, named for George W. Shortlist for Supreme Court nomination That went to Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017. “But his sincere religious faith prevented him from working on Sundays.”
Groff’s attorney, Aaron Street, told the high court that the USPS could have done more and was wrong to claim that “it was too difficult to respect Groff’s trust.” He urged judges to waive or invalidate the precedent and allow an accommodation that would allow the worker to “serve both his employer and his God.”
“Sunday is a day when we get together and almost have a taste of heaven,” Groff said. the new York Times recently. “We come together as believers. We celebrate who we are together. We worship God. And so to be asked to deliver Amazon parcels and leave all that, it’s really sad.
The Biden administration has urged the high court to clarify the law to make it clear that an employer cannot accommodate an employee’s Sabbath observance by “using shorthand operations to secure replacement workers or regularly paying overtime.” There is no need to do.
However, Solicitor General Elisabeth Preloger acknowledged that employers may still need to bear other costs such as administrative expenses associated with rearranging schedules.
This story has been updated with additional details.