No One Should Be Forced To Choose Between His Faith And His Paycheck

American employees should not be forced to decide between their ability to earn a living and the freedom of exercising their religious beliefs. This is the issue the Supreme Court will be addressing. Groff v. DeJoy.

This Tuesday is a diverse group Amicus briefs submitted to the court urging it to address that question in a clear and convincing manner “no.” Over 30 briefs have been filed for Christians, Jews and Hindus as well as Muslims, Seventh-day Adventists and Sikhs.

Groff The United States Postal Service (USPS), Gerald Groff is a Christian who has undisputed sincere beliefs about worshipping, resting and not working Sundays. In 2013, USPS established a contract with Amazon to deliver mail on Sundays after Groff joined USPS in 2012. USPS initially accommodated Groff’s Sunday Sabbath observer, but then required him to work on Sundays.

As per his religious beliefs Groff didn’t work Sunday Sabbath. USPS took progressive disciplinary measures against him. In 2019, Groff quit, realizing that his termination was near. This led to the religious discrimination suit.

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide the fate of religious accommodation rights at work.

Workplace Accommodations for Religious Reasons

Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits Discrimination on the basis or race, color, religions, sex, national origin, in employment Recognizing the importance of employees being able to freely express their faith in an open society, Congress modified Title VII to require employers to use Title VII from 1972. “reasonably accommodate” If it would be considered dangerous, an employee should not allow employees to observe or practice religious beliefs and practices. “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The necessity for a religious accommodation in the workplace arises when a job duty, rule, or policy violates an employee’s sincerely held religious belief — such as working on one’s Sabbath. In practice, Title VII’s religious accommodation right has the biggest benefit for employees of minority religions and those who have less common religious practices — from a Muslim’s hijab and daily prayers, to a Jew’s yarmulke or Friday Sabbath observance, to a Seventh-day Adventist’s Saturday Sabbath observance, and a Sikh’s kirpan (small sword), metal bracelet, unshorn hair, and beard.

The Supreme Court was established in 2015. held Title VII stipulates that Abercrombie & Fitch can’t refuse to employ a Muslim woman applicant if she wears a hijab which violates the store’s rules. “no cap” policy. The Supreme Court clarified: “Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices — that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored treatment,” Employers are now under an affirmative obligation

What Does ‘Undue Hardship’ Mean?

It is the central problem in Groff This is the meaning of the expression “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” entails. A 1977 case, called Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. HardisonThe Supreme Court interprets similar language in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guideline that was in force during the events. summarily stated This “undue hardship” meant merely “more than a de minimis cost.” Lower court judges in the United States have adopted this formulation as Title VII standard, effectively removing the right to religious accommodation at work that Congress had provided for employees.

Judges, jurists, scholars and religious leaders have all criticised the practice. Hardison Formulating court’s undue burden. Justice Thurgood Marshall described this in his dissent. HardisonThe final decision “effectively nullifie[s]” The religious accommodations rights of employees “makes a mockery” Title VII.

It can be summarized as follows: HardisonIt is absurd to say that there are more than the de minimis standards. De minimis means “very small or trifling,” More than the minimum is not a sufficient amount. “very small or trifling.” “Undue,” Contrary to this, it is means “exceeding what is appropriate or normal” Or “excessive,” This is significantly greater than “very small or trifling.”

Since HardisonTo avoid the application HardisonCongress explicitly defines’s textual standard. “undue hardship” In multiple statutes “an action requiring significant difficulty or expense.” It is also true of laws that require other kinds of accommodations in the workplace, like the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), providing accommodations for employees with disabilities, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (222) which offers accommodations to employees for known limitations related maternity, childbirth or related medical conditions.

Secondary issue Hardison Is it possible to show a hardship on employer’s business by only putting the burden on employees’ coworkers? In GroffAppeal court ruled USPS met its burden of demonstrating undue hardship by Groff accommodating would be a burden on employees’ coworkers. This standard would limit Title VII’s religious accommodations protections and make them subject to a “heckler’s veto by disgruntled employees,” As Judge Thomas Hardiman stated in his dissension.

Protection of Religious Accommodations

Recent years have seen many chances for the Supreme Court to revisit. HardisonHowever, the court ruled that it had to do so. Groff. Many believe that this court might reject the appeal. Hardison‘s more than de minimis formulation and clarify that undue means, well, just that — undue.

This case is a simple one. The case involves a straightforward exercise in textual and statutory interpretation.

The interesting thing about this case is the fact that the USPS, which is an arm of federal government, is represented in court in the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was also joined by the DOJ (federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII) in December 2019. told the court This HardisonThe formulation of’s is “incorrect.” In fact, the brief USPS submitted to court requesting that it not hear GroffDOJ just argued that this case was a “poor vehicle” To revisit Hardison That the burden of religious accommodation on coworkers is a problem “does not merit review.” Evidently, the court disagreed.

For the United States of America to alter its position, it would be against DOJ tradition Hardison. However, it’s not known if Biden will support religious liberty, especially if it concerns a Christian worker. The USPS will respond shortly.

You can see this evidenced in the numerous amicus briefs that have been filed by various faith traditions to support GroffReligious accommodation rights within the workplace are something that every American, no matter their faith, should and can support. There should never be a dilemma between earning a salary and following his faith.

Employers won’t be stopped from denying requests for religious accommodation if the Supreme Court doesn’t act. This is because employers can prove a slightly higher cost than minimalis. High time for the Supreme Court to take action Hardison‘s error.

Oral argument in Groff The meeting is set for April 18th, and the decision will be made by June 30th.

Rachel N. Morrison works as an attorney and fellow in the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s HHS Accountability Project.