Employees seeking religious accommodation in the workplace won a big victory Thursday as the Supreme Court sided with a former U.S. Postal Service worker who says he was disciplined for refusing to work for religious reasons on his Sabbath.
In a 9–0 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the court vacated and sent back for further consideration an appeals court decision that accommodating Groff’s religious beliefs imposed on the USPS an undue burden. In doing so, the court ruled that the standard previously used to deny employees accommodation for relief for religious reasons had been too harsh, and it laid down a clarified guideline for lower courts to use when determining if an employee’s request imposes an undue hardship on the employer’s business.
The previous standard, set in a 1977 case called Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, indicated that employers could turn down an employee’s request for religious dispensation, claimed under the rules set forth in Title VII, if it resulted in more than a “de minimis,” or minimal, cost to the business. According to the ruling in Groff, written by Justice Samuel Alito, “lower courts have latched on to ‘de minimus’ as the governing standard,” with the result that “diverse religious groups tell the Court that the ‘de minimis’ standard has been used to deny even minor accommodations.”
Continued the ruling:
The Court holds 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. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. The Court understands Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.
The Supreme Court tossed out the lower courts’ decision in the case and sent it back for further review under the clarification made in Groff.
Gerald Groff was hired in 2012 to work as a rural carrier for the post office in Quarryville, Pennsylvania. After the USPS entered into a contract in 2013 with Amazon to deliver on Sundays, Groff requested and was granted a transfer to the Holtwood office, which had only seven employees and did not deliver packages on Sundays. When in 2017 that office also began Sunday deliveries, Groff attempted to accommodate the new policy by swapping shifts with other carriers. (RELATED: Colorado Christian School Seeks Enforcement of the ‘Ministerial Exception’)
However, on more than 20 occasions substitutes could not be found, and Groff didn’t show up for work. After numerous disciplinary actions, Groff quit rather than be fired and sued the Postal Service for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
A trial court and then the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Groff, the latter stating that the Postal Service’s denial of Groff’s request met the de minimis standards. “Exempting [Groff] from Sunday work” would cause an “undue hardship,” the court said, “more than a de minimis cost on USPS because it actually imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.” In addition, Groff’s refusal to work on Sundays “created a ‘tense atmosphere’” among the other carriers, who had to cover for his absences, “and led to ‘resentment toward management.’”
In ruling that de minimis was too low a bar to deny religious accommodation, the Supreme Court also took issue with the standard applied by the lower court in denying Groff’s claim. The issue was not the effect Groff’s accommodation had on his coworkers but the harm it had on the employer. It’s hard to fathom that the USPS, with 600,000 employees, would be significantly hurt by Groff’s request.
Although assessment of an accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business” might be required, Alito wrote, “a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered ‘undue.’”
Champions of religious liberty are hailing the ruling as momentous. Said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and first counsel of First Liberty Institute, which represented Groff:
This is a landmark victory, not only for [Groff], but for every American. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. The Court’s decision today restores religious freedom to every American in the workplace.
Indeed, the ruling may prove to be ecumenically helpful. Joshua McDaniel, director of Harvard University’s Religious Freedom Clinic, who submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in support of Groff’s position,” told Time magazine, “This decision is especially important for religious minorities, like Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs, who are predominantly the plaintiffs in these cases.” (READ MORE: Blow Out the Candle, Bigot)
While Groff, a Christian, is the headliner in this case, McDaniel told Time, Muslims constitute “more than 18% of all Title VII religious accommodation claims.”
“This decision will give those religious minorities a fair shot in court,” McDaniel said, “and, one would hope, encourage more employers to adopt more inclusive workplace policies so that religious employees won’t have to choose between their livelihood and their faith.”
Some conservative-leaning types, however, seem less than sanguine. Walter Olson, writing for the Cato Institute, states:
[The opinion] load[s] private, not just public, employers with new practical burdens in the name of accommodating employees’ religious beliefs.… Whatever the standard appropriate for government workplaces, there are high stakes in imposing a standard on private workplaces. Today’s decision leaves private employment relations in America less free.
In the past few years, the Supreme Court has argued several First American cases, ruling for the right of a high school football coach to pray on school grounds and for allowing state funds to be used on religious schools. Groff v. DeJoy represents only the latest in a string of conservative victories in religious-liberty-based cases at the high court.
