Openings at the post office in Quarryville, Pennsylvania, are advertised on March 5. A former part-time postal worker named Gerald Groff sued the United States Postal Service claiming religious discrimination because he was being forced to work on Sundays. His case was recently reviewed by the Supreme Court.
While all eyes were on what the Supreme Court would do over the abortion pill mifepristone, the justices reviewed another case of considerable weight in that very same week that slipped under the radar for most of us — one having to do with religious liberty. The central question: How far must employers go to accommodate the religious views of their employees?
The components are simple enough. The U.S. Postal Service delivers packages on Sundays, mostly Amazon packages. Full-time career employees, called “regulars” in the business, are not required to deliver them. That task falls to part-time workers called rural carrier associates, or RCAs.
Regulars work five days a week. RCAs fill in on the days regulars have off, which could be any of the six days the post office delivers mail, Monday through Saturday. Most regulars pick Saturday as their off day, but it could be any day of the week. With the advent of online shopping, Sunday package delivery became part of the postal workweek.
Problem: What if you are a deeply religious person who doesn’t work on the Sabbath?
That’s the question at the heart of Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could potentially give religious conservatives unprecedented power to make demands from their employers and reshape workplace culture.
Gerald Groff, 45, is an evangelical Christian. In 2012 he went to work as an RCA for a small post office in rural Pennsylvania. In this three-person office, he probably filled in for one carrier on one day and the other carrier on a different day. He may have also done fill-in work at other offices in the region. That’s not uncommon for RCAs.
Initially, Groff had no problem since rural carriers were not required to work on Sundays. He said he loved the job and hoped to make a career out of it.
But, once the Postal Service signed a deal with Amazon in 2013, Groff was required to deliver Amazon packages, which included Sunday deliveries.
He refused. He was disciplined for it.
“I’m put into a situation where I have to choose to honor my earthly authority or do what I know is right to honor God,” he told The New York Times.
He chose God, he said. In 2019, he quit. Then he sued the Postal Service under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Lower courts held for the Postal Service, agreeing that granting Groff’s religious accommodation would cause “undue hardship” on the company and particularly on his co-workers. The co-workers would have to deliver the packages, costing the company excessive overtime wages. The Postal Service argued that even the accommodations it had made for Groff (allowing him some but not all Sundays off) “actually contributed to other employees quitting or transferring.”
There is some legal jargon to digest. A provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” their workers’ religious beliefs and practices unless it presents an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. In the 1977 case Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, the Supreme Court defined “undue hardship” as any accommodation that imposed more than a small, or “de minimis,” cost on the employer. The Latin phrase “de minimis” refers to a burden so small or trifling that it’s unworthy of consideration.
In lay terms, if it’s burdensome enough to adversely affect the…
Read More: This Supreme Court Case Slipped Under The Radar — And The Stakes Are Huge