The
Supreme Court
wrestled with concerns on Tuesday about a decades-old legal precedent that creates difficulties for employees to seek
religious
accommodations.
The case centers on an appeal by Christian plaintiff
Gerald Groff
, who claimed the
U.S. Post Office
should have granted his desired schedule to have time off on Sundays for religious observance. His counsel argued the justices should make it easier to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination by employers on several matters, including religion.
Justices are asked to consider whether to overturn or make amendments to a 1977 ruling known as Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which found employers need not make accommodations that would impose a minimal burden.
MAIL CARRIER WHO REFUSED SUNDAY WORK HEADS TO SUPREME COURT: ‘I HAVE TO CHOOSE GOD’
During oral arguments, Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar sought to clarify the government’s view that the 1977 case could be revised, stopping short of saying it should be completely overturned.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, one of two other Republican-appointed justices who
previously indicated
the court should reconsider Hardison, noted that Prelogar’s position was “productive in finding points of agreement” among the justices. And at one point, liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested there was some “kumbaya-ing” among the justices.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative member, asked Prelogar how the court could revise the standard without “destabilizing the law.”
Prelogar said a way of clarifying the standard is that lower courts that have read Hardison to mean “you never have to accommodate” a religious request should be told that “is inconsistent with the current state of the law.”
Rick Garnett, a law professor from the University of Notre Dame, told the Washington Examiner the court’s three Democratic appointees might prefer Congress to address any outstanding questions in Hardison.
“The federal government argued, and the more liberal justices appeared to agree, that Hardison is workable and that Congress can, if it wants, correct it,” Garnett said.
However, two conservative members, Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appeared sympathetic to USPS’s argument that a wide ruling in favor of Groff could put a damper on morale among other employees who may not share the same faith.
Groff worked as a mail carrier for the USPS in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, from 2012 to 2019 before he resigned. He was initially not asked to work on Sundays, but his schedule changed in 2015 due to a requirement to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays.
His managers arranged for other postal workers to deliver packages on Sundays until the summer of 2018. Following that point, Groff faced disciplinary consequences if he didn’t work on Sundays.
“I told my postmaster … ‘Every disciplinary hearing that I’ve had … I feel like you’re asking me to choose between God and what I believe or to obey you.’ And I said, ‘I mean no disrespect, but I have to choose my faith. I have to choose God,'” Groff told the Washington Examiner.
Groff has faced uphill fights in lower courts. After a federal judge said the USPS provided reasonable accommodation and that anything further would lead to undue hardship to his peers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld that decision.
After discussing the case for nearly two hours, there appeared to be some agreement among the nine justices that the appeals court was too quick to rule against Groff.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Numerous groups filed amicus briefs for and against Groff. The American Postal Workers Union wrote that a ruling for Groff would create a disadvantageous outcome for workers who do not share a similar faith. Meanwhile, he’s garnered support from religious groups, including the American Hindu Coalition, the American Sikh Coalition, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
A ruling in the case Groff v. DeJoy is expected by the end of June.
