Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Of Postal Worker Forced Out Of Job After Requesting To Observe Sabbath

The Supreme Court It has We are in agreement We will be taking up a case concerning a postal worker who was fired because he didn’t want to work Sundays due his religious convictions.

“It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion,” Kelly Shackelford is the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Counsel at First Liberty, which represents Groff. This was stated in a press release that was provided to The Daily Wire. “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.”

In 2012, Gerald Groff All rights reserved Working for the United States Postal Service in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, after looking for a job that wouldn’t make him work on Sundays. Groff, in keeping with his religious beliefs wanted to keep the Christian Sabbath.

Groff was unhappy with his job status when the post office started Amazon package delivery Sundays.

Groff asked for a religious accommodation to ensure that he could keep the Sabbath. He was granted accommodation at first and then allowed to work more on other day. He was only offered options by the postal service that would allow him to work on Sundays.

Groff resigned and sued the United States Postal Service.

In May rulingThe Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court’s findings favoring USPS.

According to the appeals court’s Take the decision, a district court “found that USPS provided evidence” In various areas “undue hardship.” It also stated that Groff Sundays should be avoided “was an undue hardship” It would force the only other substitute carrier to work every Sunday, even though they work. “as needed.”

Groff’s attorneys petitioned The Supreme Court Take into account Answer two questions and complete the case.

One concern was whether an employer can prove that there is “undue hardship” Their business is thriving because of a “requested accommodation” places a burden on a worker’s co-workers instead of the business.

They also requested the Supreme Court to inquire if it should. “disapprove” a prior decision Made In Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1977) The following is an excerpt from the “more-than-de-minimis-cost test” was not to grant religious accommodations. This was established to not grant religious accommodations. caseThe supreme court is basically ruled An undue hardship The amount To Making Take on the responsibility of a company “more than a de minimis cost.”

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases