US Supreme Court to consider violation of religious liberty
Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, says he was denied an accommodation to observe his Sunday Sabbath
Police officers stand in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 50th annual March for Life rally on Jan. 20 in Washington, DC.
By Kate Scanlon, OSV News
Published: March 04, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider a case April 18 that could have broad implications for employees seeking religious accommodations from their employers.
The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy, a case concerning Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian and former U.S. Postal Service worker, who was denied an accommodation to observe his Sunday Sabbath by not taking Sunday shifts.
Federal law prohibits employers from firing employees for who request religious accommodations unless the employer can show that the worker's religious practice cannot be "reasonably" accommodated without "undue hardship." The Supreme Court issued a 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison finding that the "undue hardship" standard is met even at a minimal cost.
Groff alleged in federal court that USPS failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations for his religious practices. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled in favor of USPS, arguing the post office would face "undue hardship" by accommodating Groff's request to excuse him from Sunday shifts.
But the U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to take up the case.
Randy Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center, a group representing Groff, told OSV News that Groff "has a very strong conviction about Sunday being the Lord's Day," which caused him to seek employment at a place that was closed on Sundays.
"In a pluralistic society, it's really important to be able to find those ways to accommodate so that we can all work together effectively," he said.
Wenger said when the post office reached an agreement to deliver some Amazon packages on Sundays, Groff sought accommodations to not work those shifts. He was initially accommodated, then disciplined for his refusal to work Sundays. He later resigned to avoid violating his convictions.
"If we're committed to protecting religious conscience, we need to make sure employees don't lose their jobs for following their faith," Wegner said. "It's kind of like freedom of speech, you might not like what somebody has to say, but their ability to say what they say helps you say what you want to say."
In a court filing, attorneys for USPS argued that "simply skipping (Groff) in the rotation for Sunday work would have violated both a collectively bargained (memorandum of understanding) and a specific settlement." USPS attorneys added the accommodation would have created "morale problems" among his colleagues.
Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, a religious liberty law firm that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, told OSV News the Supreme Court's previous ruling on the minimum standard in Hardison is not in keeping with the intention of the federal law.
"So essentially, if it costs the employer anything at all to accommodate, the employer doesn't have to accommodate," he said of the previous ruling. "The whole point of the law was to actually protect the employees unless it was some real hardship on the employer. And instead of requiring hardship, what the court said was actually it doesn't really have to be a hardship."
Rienzi said he is optimistic the court will fix its previous interpretation.
"I strongly suspect they're going to fix it and acknowledge it made no sense," he said.
ADL, AJC join in US Supreme Court case on workplace religious protections
Orthodox Jewish groups are already supporting the case of an evangelical postal worker who wants Sundays off, saying workplaces that don’t respect religious freedom affect Jews
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Two leading Jewish civil rights organizations are part of a coalition of groups asking the US Supreme Court to uphold protections for religious observance in the workplace in a case that has already drawn support from Orthodox Jews.
The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee each joined separate amicus briefs this week in Groff v. DeJoy, on behalf of an evangelical Christian postal worker whose case requesting to get Sundays off is under consideration by the court.
Orthodox groups have been backing Gerald Groff since last year when he was endeavoring to get the Supreme Court to consider the case. The court took up his case in January.
The pairing of both secular groups with the Orthodox in a religious freedom case is rare — they have frequently been on opposite sides on church-state separation issues such as same-sex marriage or government funding for religious education — but the right of religious expression in the workplace has long been a unifying cause across the Jewish spectrum.
The litigant in this particular case wants Sundays off, but the AJC explained in a statement that in workplaces that refuse to grant a day off for religious observance, half of the adversely affected employees take Saturday as a day of rest, among them observant Jews.
“Contrary to established law, religious discrimination remains a feature of the American workplace,” the AJC’s statement said.
Groff is a Pennsylvania mailman who sought accommodations after the US Postal Service started Sunday deliveries on behalf of Amazon in 2013. At first, Groff was able to work around Sunday deliveries, but as demand for the service grew, USPS disciplined him for declining Sunday shifts. He quit and sued. (Louis DeJoy, named in the case, is the postmaster general.)
A 1972 amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act guarantees freedom from discrimination based on religion, as long as employers would not face “undue hardship.” But Congress did not define that term.
Supporters of Groff see the case as a chance to overturn a key precedent established in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the 1977 Supreme Court decision that ruled for the airline over a member of a Christian sect who sought Saturdays off, rejecting three possible accommodations posited by a lower court as “undue hardships.” The possible accommodations involved allowing the employee a four-day work week; paying other employees overtime to fill his shift; or allowing the employee to leapfrog more senior employees in seeking Saturdays off.
Religious groups have long argued that the court’s rejection of those accommodations essentially made the 1972 amendment meaningless. Lower courts have ruled against Groff in this case, citing the 1977 Supreme Court decision.
The ADL said the case was a matter of fairness.
“People of faith will forever be unable to participate fully in society if they are forced to choose between their religion and earning a living,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement.
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULED ON THIS ALREADY AND WE HAVE A LAW NOW OF 'DUTY TO ACCOMODATE' BASED ON A CASE OF A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST WANTING A RELIGIOUS DAY OFF.
Duty to accommodate
Page controls
Page content
Under the Code, employers and unions, housing providers and service providers have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard. Accommodation is necessary to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunities, access and benefits. Employment, housing, services and facilities should be designed inclusively and must be adapted to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability in a way that promotes integration and full participation.
In the context of employment, the Supreme Court of Canada has described the goals and purposes of accommodation:
... the goal of accommodation is to ensure that an employee who is able to work can do so. In practice, this means that the employer must accommodate the employee in a way that, while not causing the employer undue hardship, will ensure that the employee can work. The purpose of the duty to accommodate is to ensure that persons who are otherwise fit to work are not unfairly excluded where working conditions can be adjusted without undue hardship.
…
No comments:
Post a Comment