Supreme Court seems sympathetic to postal worker who didn’t work Sundays in dispute over religious accommodations
CNN
—
The Supreme Court appeared to side with a former mail carrier and evangelical Christian who said the U.S. Postal Service failed to accommodate his request not to work on Sundays.
A lower court ruled against the worker, Gerald Groff, finding that his request would impose an “undue burden” on the USPS and lead to low workplace morale. , as other employees had to take over his shift.
But during nearly two hours of oral arguments Tuesday, there appeared to be consensus that the appeals court ruled against Grove too quickly.
As Justice Elena Kagan put it, there sometimes seems to be a degree of “mutual contention” among the justices.
But the split emerged as the justices sought to create a test that lower courts could use to clarify how much employers must accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, with Grove’s attorneys suggesting the court overturn decades of precedent. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed open to the prospect.
Crucially, however, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were sympathetic to the Postal Service’s argument that granting Grove’s request could cause other employees’ morale to plummet. Cavanaugh noted that employer “morale” is critical to the success of any business. Several justices acknowledged the financial difficulties the U.S. Postal Service has faced over the years.
Grove, who lives in Pennsylvania, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in 2012 as a rural carrier assistant, a position that provides coverage to career employees who are absent from work during weekends. Rural operator staff have been told they need flexibility.
Grove’s life changed in 2013 when the U.S. Postal Service contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays. Grove’s Christian faith prohibited him from working on Sundays.
The post office considered making some adjustments to Grove, such as offering to adjust his schedule so he could work after religious services or telling him he should see if other workers could take over his shift. At certain times, the postmaster took care of the deliveries himself because it was difficult to find employees willing to work on Sundays. Finally, the U.S. Postal Service suggested that Grove choose a different day to celebrate the Sabbath.
Tensions were high among colleagues, and Grove said he faced progressive disciplinary action. In response, he filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces federal law that makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of their religion.
Grove eventually left in 2019. In his resignation letter, he said he was unable to “find a permissive employment atmosphere at the U.S. Postal Service that respects his religious beliefs.”
Grove filed a lawsuit arguing that the Postal Service violated Title VII of federal law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on their religious beliefs. To make a claim under the law, an employee must prove that he holds a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with job requirements, he must notify his employer, and he must be disciplined for failure to comply.
Under the law, the burden shifts to the employer. Employers must demonstrate that they made a good faith effort to “reasonably accommodate” the employee’s beliefs or that such an accommodation would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer.
District Judge Jeffrey Schmel, appointed by former President Barack Obama, Grove loses casearguing that his request to not work on Sundays would cause an “undue hardship” to the U.S. Postal Service.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirmed the ruling With a 2-1 opinion.
The Third Circuit wrote in its opinion last year: “Exempting Grove from working on Sundays would impose more than a trivial penalty on the Postal Service, as it would effectively impose an imposition on his co-workers and disrupt the workplace and work process, and lowered employee morale.”
“The accommodation Grove seeks (the Sunday work exemption) would impose an undue hardship on the U.S. Postal Service,” the court added.
Dissenting Justice Thomas Hardiman provided a road map for judges seeking to rule in Grove’s favor. The main point he objected to was that the Postal Service is required by law to show how proposed accommodations would harm “the business,” not Grove’s colleagues.
“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night prevented Gerald Grove from completing his appointed turn,” wrote Hardiman, the George W. Bush nominee. Supreme Court nominee list In 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch received the document. “But his sincere religious beliefs prevent him from working on Sundays.”
Grove’s attorney, Aaron Streett, told the high court that the Postal Service could have done more but was wrong to claim that “respecting Grove’s beliefs would be too onerous.” He urged judges to reduce or strike down precedent and allow for compromises that would allow workers to “serve their employer as well as God.”
“Sunday is the day we come together to almost taste heaven,” Grove told us new york times recent. “We come together as believers. We celebrate who we are together. We worship God. So to be asked to deliver an Amazon package and give up all that, it’s really kind of sad.”
The Biden administration urged the high court to simply clarify the law to make it clear that employers are not required to meet employees’ Sabbath observance requirements through “short staffing or regular overtime payments to secure replacement workers.”
However, Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Preloga acknowledged that employers may still be required to incur other costs, such as administrative costs associated with rescheduling.
This story has been updated with additional details.
