The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider eight new cases, including an appeal on whether employers need to offer better accommodations for religious workers.
Justices granted the appeal from a Christian Pennsylvania-based postal carrier who claims he was forced out of his job for being unable to work on Sundays. The petition seeks for justices to make it easier for employees to bring religious claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination of several different forms, including on the basis of religion.
The case, Groff v. DeJoy, was brought by former postal worker Gerald Groff, who missed 24 scheduled Sunday shifts due to his request for accommodation to not work on such days because of his Christian faith. His managers arranged for other workers to deliver packages on Sundays until July 2018, when he began to face disciplinary actions if he did not come to work.
SUPREME COURT LEAK: INVESTIGATION CLOSES IN ON AT LEAST ONE LAW CLERK
When he resigned, he sued the U.S. Postal Service for failing to accommodate his request. A federal judge said the Postal Service provided enough reasonable accommodation and that any more would cause an undue burden to the employer and his colleagues.
Groff is represented by First Liberty Institute, which is challenging a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit decision that found the Postal Service was not at fault in the dispute.
“It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty, told the Washington Examiner. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to reconsider a decades-old case that favors corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees.”
Religious rights advocates have been seeking for the high court to reconsider its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which found employers can’t be required under a federal job discrimination law to bear more than a minimal cost.
Three Republican-appointed justices on the high court, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, previously said the court should consider overruling Hardison.
Here is a summary of additional cases the court agreed to hear for the remainder of its 2022-23 term:
The justices also agreed to hear a case on what constitutes a “true threat” that can be prosecuted as a crime versus what types of threatening language may be protected by the First Amendment.
The appeal was brought by Colorado-based Billy Counterman, who says his conviction for sending Facebook messages to musician Coles Whalen should be invalidated because a jury was not required to make a finding about whether he intended his comments to be genuine threats.
Geraldine Tyler is a 93-year-old whose property in Minnesota was seized by Hennepin County because she owed $15,000 in property taxes and related fees. The county sold the home for $40,000 and kept all proceeds, according to Tyler’s counsel.
The Supreme Court is tapped to decide whether such seizures violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay back compensation when a property is taken. The court will also consider whether government action could be viewed as an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
Additional cases added despite record-setting wait for opinions on pending cases
Five other cases were added to the docket amid a four-month period in which the court has not released a single opinion over cases heard in the fall. The next ruling, which hasn’t been scheduled, will be the first since the high court ended its 2021-22 term in the summer with blockbuster decisions such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
One of the five additional cases the court will hear pertains to whether the bankruptcy code expresses unequivocally Congress’s intent to override the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin.
