Agudath Israel is welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case involving accommodation of a Sabbath observer in the workplace.
Last year, Agudath Israel and other Orthodox groups joined a National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA) brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case and provide more meaningful accommodation of religious practices — including Sabbath observance — for American workers. The COLPA brief was authored by renowned constitutional attorney Nathan Lewin.
Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, was a Pennsylvania mailman. When Amazon contracted with the United States Postal Service (USPS) to deliver packages on Sundays, Mr. Groff, who observes Sunday as his Sabbath, was faced with a religious dilemma. Mr. Groff attempted to make arrangements with the USPS to avoid working Sundays by offering to work multiple make-up shifts and even by switching postal offices, but the Postal Service deemed this insufficient and multiple disciplinary actions were taken against him. Facing termination Mr. Groff chose, instead, to resign from the USPS.
Following his resignation, Mr. Groff sued the USPS for failing to accommodate his sincerely-held religious beliefs. However, he was unsuccessful as both the district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him. They did so on the basis that his absence on Sunday caused an “undue burden” to the USPS. The courts’ ruling is based on an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, in which the Court weakly defined “undue burden” as only “more than de minimis cost,” meaning more than a “trivial burden.”
Mr. Lewin’s brief requested the Court overturn its previous ruling in the Hardison case, stating that “changes in American society and in the understanding of the Establishment Clause justify rejection and repudiation today of a legal rule that perpetrates great injustice and harm on Sunday observing Christians like petitioner and on Jewish, Moslem, and Seventh-Day Adventist members of America’s work force.” The brief also notes that because of Hardison, religious employees have a harder time receiving legal accommodation than those who need accommodation on the basis of age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, and paternity.
“The history of American Jewry cannot be told without marking the struggle for Sabbath observance,” said Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudah’s executive vice president. “Due to Hardison, countless people have given up or even lost employment opportunities for jobs for which they were eminently qualified. Most of these cases were not even litigated because of the high bar set by Hardison. By agreeing to hear this case the Supreme Court has taken one step forward to rectifying this and protecting the religious liberties of Americans in the workforce.”
Rabbi Zwiebel continued: “We are especially pleased to add Agudath Israel’s name to an amicus brief authored by the great champion of Orthodox Jewish legal rights, Nathan Lewin. For many decades, Mr. Lewin has been in the forefront of the battle to have the Supreme Court undo the harmful Hardison ‘de minimus’ standard and ensure broad legal protections for Sabbath observers in the workplace. By agreeing to review the Groff case, the Supreme Court gives us hope that Mr. Lewin’s tireless efforts will finally be rewarded.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
3 Responses
The headline is a bit misleading.
The question before the supreme court isn’t whether religious accommodation will be enhanced.
Rather, it’s a question whether federal religious accommodation rules will be completely gutted by allowing other nonobservant employees to have a hecklers’ veto.
Absolutely correct SchnitzelBigot.
Given that the Postal Service operates seven days a week, and Sunday is actually their “light” day, they should have no problem accommodating someone wanting one day off. I suspect that some rules involving a labor union are involved, and that the plaintiff is low on seniority and therefore not allowed to choose his days off. One hopes that the court is likely to adopt Thurgood Marshall’s dissent from Hardison, though that would raise serious objections since it would undermine the role of unions. One should also note that since this is case involving a government agency, it might serve as a very limited precedent (e.g. if they decide that banning persons from employment based on religion violates the “test act” clause).