Attorneys Jeremy Samek, left, Randall Wenger, Kelly Shackelford and Aaron Streett, right, listen to Gerald Groff address the media after leaving the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
The Supreme Court rules in favor of Pa. man who refused to work on Sunday
By Brett Sholtis/LNP | LancasterOnline
Suzette Wenger / LNP | LANCASTERONLINE
Attorneys Jeremy Samek, left, Randall Wenger, Kelly Shackelford and Aaron Streett, right, listen to Gerald Groff address the media after leaving the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
This story is published in partnership with LancasterOnline. For more coverage on Quarryville mail carrier’s case against Postal Service, click here.
After having his day in the U.S. Supreme Court in April, a former mail carrier from Providence Township who refused to accept Sunday work shifts—citing his religious conviction that Sunday should be a day of rest—will now take his case back to a federal appeals court.
This time, however, the judges who hear Gerald Groff’s case will apply a new standard that Groff’s own legal team successfully pushed for at the high court.
The unanimous Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday clarified a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that employers must make accommodations for religious workers unless doing so would cause an undue hardship for employers.
The court’s decision also resolved a longstanding complaint from some conservative justices over a previous ruling, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. The 1977 ruling defined “undue hardship” to mean anything that would cause more than a minimum inconvenience—making it easier for employers to deny religious accommodation requests. This court overturned that prior definition.
“We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the ruling.
Alito said that courts must consider “all relevant factors” in each religious rights case, including the particular accommodations requested and the size and operating costs of an employer.
Groff’s clash with his employer, the U.S. Postal Service, began when mail carriers were scheduled for Sunday shifts to deliver Amazon packages. The Evangelical Christian postal worker skipped 24 Sunday shifts and ultimately resigned his position, saying he feared he was about to be fired. Groff sued the Postal Service with the help of Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center, which along with other conservative law firms successfully took the case to the high court.
Groff’s cause received support from groups representing various religious faiths. Other organizations opposed the case put forward by Groff’s attorneys, saying it would privilege some workers over others and could allow employees and companies to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, women and others who are sometimes the targets of conservative religious policies.
But Thursday’s ruling was applauded by both Groff’s supporters and opponents.
Independence Law Center Chief Counsel Randall Wenger, who helped litigate the case, said the outcome was “a landmark victory for religious liberty.”
“I’m thrilled, because the Supreme Court is breathing life back into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that was meant to protect religious employees in the workplace,” Wenger said. He said the new standard—an employer must face a “substantial” hardship to deny a worker’s right—does a better job of balancing business concerns with the rights of employees.
Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, had raised concerns that the Groff case could result in limiting the freedoms of others. However, she said the ruling was a relief for those who share her concerns.
“We argued that whatever standard the court adopted for workers seeking religious accommodations, the only way to ensure equality was to ensure that workers obeying the rules of their own religion do not harm others,” Laser said. “If anything else were true, one religion would be superior to others. The court’s ‘clarified’ standard correctly allows employers to continue to consider the burdens an employee’s requested accommodation could impose on co-workers.”
Villanova University law professor Michael Moreland noted that the court’s clarification will now play out in lower courts, where judges will have to balance the rights of employers and workers. Exactly where that balance falls is unclear, “but for now, at least it means that there’s a stronger protection under the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination claims.”
Groff was unavailable for comment Thursday. An LNP | LancasterOnline reporter visited his home Thursday morning where she was greeted by a woman who told her to contact the Texas-based religious rights law firm First Liberty Institute, which helped represent Groff.
Former vice president Mike Pence, who is running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, viewed the court’s decision as a win for conservative priorities. “Today’s ruling will help prevent unlawful vaccine mandates while helping to protect the unborn, and serves as another reminder that we must always appoint judges and justices who will uphold the Constitution.”
Groff’s lawyer, Wenger, said he doesn’t know yet when the case will go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, estimating “several months at the minimum.”
A collection of interviews, photos, and music videos, featuring local musicians who have stopped by the WITF performance studio to share a little discussion and sound. Produced by WITF’s Joe Ulrich.
