Ex-postal worker who wants Sundays off wins at Supreme Court, but he still could lose case

Surprise! Court makes unanimous ruling in religious-rights dispute

Image adapted from photo by Kyrie Kim; licensed by Unsplash.

When the law says that an employer must accommodate the religious practices of employees unless it creates an “undue hardship,” that means that the employer has to accommodate employees unless there’s an undue hardship.

At its heart, the Groff v. DeJoy case unanimously decided — yes, a religion case was decided on a 9-0 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court — was that simple.

But the final resolution of the specific dispute that began the case may not be so simple; the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts to determine how to apply today’s ruling to the specific facts of the case.

The legal action was initiated by Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who believes that he shouldn’t work on Sundays. He took a job with the U.S. Postal Service at a time when the USPS wasn’t involved in Sunday deliveries, so there was no conflict between his religion and his job. But the postal service’s practices changed with the advent of its contracting with Amazon; the USPS was able to rotate workers for a while so Groff could have the days off, but ultimately the schedule changes became impractical, and Groff faced disciplinary measures for his work absences. After resigning rather than being fired, he sued.

Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which contains the “undue hardship” clause. Here’s the legal problem Groff faced: A 1977 Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, included a brief comment indicating that an employee could meet the hardship test by putting forth a de minimis or trivial effort to accommodate. And by finding other workers to fill Groff’s shifts when they were available, the postal service said it had done more than what was required.

Groff’s attorneys argued that the plain meaning of “under hardship” requires more than a trivial hardship. The high court had little trouble agreeing. Noted Justice Samuel Alito in the formal opinion:

What is most important is that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.

What the court did not do is declare that the postal service had already met the burden test with Groff. That ultimately will be determined by lower courts applying the specific facts of Groff’s case. In other words, it easily could happen that after winning his legal argument, Groff could lose on the facts of his case. Most likely, the USPS will argue that the expense and morale costs of getting other employees to involuntary work on Sundays would impose a hardship greater than the law requires.

The Supreme Court gave little guidance on the line between acceptable hardship and undue hardship. It did say that the impact of the accommodation on other employees could be considered when those impacts adversely affect the employer’s business. But it cautioned that when adverse effects on employees are based on animus toward a particular religion or religion in general, those effects cannot be considered.

Groff’s attorneys had asked the court to further define “undue hardship” as “significant difficulty or expense,” while the federal government (arguing on behalf of the postal service) preferred language such as “substantial expenditures” or “substantial additional costs.” But the court’s opinion explicitly rejected whatever clarification either of those definitions might have provided.

Although Groff v. DeJoy was a Sunday-employment case, today’s decision affects a wide range of potential conflicts between employers and religious employees who seek accommodations. Situations where employees may seek accommodations include company dress codes that conflict with religious practices, the setting aside of times for prayers, work requirements that violate an employee’s conscience, and restrictions against proselytizing on the job.