On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the U.S. Postal Service should have accommodated a Christian mailman’s religious belief that he not be forced to work on Sunday by his employer. The decision in favor of the Christian mailman was applauded by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey.
“Today’s unanimous decision from #SCOTUS reaffirms what we’ve always believed here in Alabama; that religious liberty is at the core of our country’s way of life, and government should never interfere with citizens’ desire to worship,” Gov. Ivey wrote on Twitter. This decision is a victory for America.”
Gerald Groff is a Christian mail carrier in Pennsylvania. The Postal Service required Groff to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays. Groft cited the Ten Commandments, which tell followers to keep holy the Sabbath.
In Groff v. DeJoy, Groff asked the court to decide whether the U.S. Postal Service could require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays. His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued in April that the 1977 precedent in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison did not adequately protect workers’ religious liberties and should be revisited. The Court agreed that the “undue burden” de minimis standard in that ruling did not adequately protect Americans’ freedom of religion.
The Court agreed that the “undue burden” de minimis standard in that ruling did not adequately protect Americans’ freedom of religion. The nine justices overturned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Groff as well as reworking the precedent set in Transworld v. Hardison.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the unanimous opinion.
“We hold 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,” said Alito. “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. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that ‘undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
The High Court also wrote, “An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is ‘undue,’ and 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.’ If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself.”
Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit defender of religious liberties. Liberty Counsel wrote an amicus brief in favor of Groff’s position.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Today marks the end of the era of religious discrimination caused by hostility towards religious claimants under Title VII. The Supreme Court rightfully relegated the de minimis test for religious discrimination to the dustbin of history and restored claims of religious discrimination to their rightful place of protection under Title VII.”
The new decision tightens the “undue hardship” standard and could make it easier for some individual employees to secure a religious accommodation at work.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which opposes religion in public life, argued that the ruling did not go as far as religious advocates had hoped.
“Contrary to the religious right spin, today’s opinion did not give Gerald Groff and his conservative Christian backers what they asked for and wanted,” FFRF wrote in a statement. “Groff asked the court to overrule Hardison v. TWA and change the legal test to drastically favor religious employees. He also asked the court to rule that burdens on employees are never sufficient to establish undue hardship on the conduct of a business. The unanimous court did not do any of those things.”
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
