President Biden’s administration found itself at a crossroads as the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in favor of Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker from Pennsylvania.
In a report by Conservative Brief on December 21, 2023, the case brought to light the delicate balance between religious freedom and employer responsibilities, specifically focusing on accommodating religious practices in the workplace.
Groff, a rural carrier associate, challenged the U.S. Postal Service’s requirement for him to work on Sundays, a day he observes as the Sabbath.
More Read
Represented by Aaron Streett, Groff argued that a 1977 decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, needed reassessment. This decision set a standard for when employers must accommodate religious practices.
In a significant 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the previous mandate that companies must reasonably accommodate religious practices unless it poses an undue hardship.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate religious practices unless it results in undue hardship for the business.
Streett proposed aligning with the plain language of Title VII, defining undue burden similarly to other federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Biden administration argued against overturning the Hardison decision, stating that it provided substantial protection to religious employees.
The debate focused on the interpretation of undue hardship, with Streett emphasizing potential inconsistencies in the government’s test.
Groff’s legal team urged the Supreme Court to overturn the Hardison precedent, advocating for a requirement that companies demonstrate a significant difficulty or expense before denying accommodation.
This case brought together minority religious groups, including Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, claiming that the current standard unfairly affected them.
Legal experts suggested that a strong majority or even all nine justices could align with Groff.
The Supreme Court’s decision marked a crucial development in the ongoing discourse surrounding religious freedom and workplace accommodations, prompting a reevaluation of established standards with far-reaching implications.
