Supreme Court faces quandary in mail carrier case

At first glance, it seems obvious that an employer should accommodate the religious practices of employees. We don't put away our faith when we clock into our workplaces.

But what if ensuring that one worker could keep holy the Sabbath meant that other workers had to work more weekends? And work longer shifts to cover the religious employee's workload?

In Groff v. DeJoy, Gerald Groff's legal team, led by attorney Aaron Streett, is asking the nation's highest court to revisit a 46-year-old ruling that states that employers should make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious needs if it doesn't cause the employer "undue hardship."

Because of the federal government's embrace of that standard, Streett told the justices, "a diabetic employee could receive snack breaks" but "not prayer breaks. ... An employee could receive weekly leave for pregnancy checkups but not to attend Mass."

Streett contended that the standard for religious accommodations — set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison — gives employers too much latitude to deny workers' requests. The Hardison precedent, he argued, allows even minimal expenses and inconveniences to be deemed "undue hardship" for employers.

Groff's team wants the court to rule that employers must show that a religious accommodation would create "significant difficulty or expense" before rejecting it.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who argued for the U.S. Postal Service, said the current standard has been shaped by case law and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance. She contended that it has been applied effectively by the courts and that employers aren't rejecting religious accommodations for trivial reasons.

One thing is certain. As attorney Greg Archibald of McNees, Wallace & Nurick LLC wrote in last week's Sunday LNP — LancasterOnline Perspective section, "Employment lawyers are watching this case closely, as the Supreme Court's ruling could have serious implications for how employers are expected to handle requests for religious accommodations."

We have no doubt that Groff is a man of faith.

"Very simply, I believe that the Lord's Day, or Sundays, is meant to be a day of rest, and that it's unique and holy, a day set aside to worship the Lord, and it's supposed to be a day of rest where we abstain from work," Groff said in federal district court in 2019.

As LNP — LancasterOnline's Sholtis reported, Groff said he grew up in a Christian family, attended Mennonite schools and did missionary work in Africa and Asia.

He took a part-time mail carrier job at the Quarryville post office in November 2010, but resigned after 11 months — and then returned to the job six months later.

After Quarryville mail carriers began delivering for the online retailer Amazon in 2015 and Groff was expected to take occasional Sunday shifts, he worked out a deal with the Quarryville postmaster to be exempt from working Sundays. After this became impracticable for the postmaster, Groff transferred from Quarryville to Holtwood to avoid working Sundays. Then, in 2017, Holtwood also began delivering Amazon packages.

Sholtis reported that in a deposition, "Holtwood Postmaster Brian Hess described mounting frustration at the small post office, where nearly every employee was a churchgoing Christian who, like Groff, preferred not to work Sundays."

Mail carriers were allowed to finish their Sunday shifts after church, but Groff found this to be insufficient. He failed to show up for 24 scheduled Sunday shifts. The burden of Sunday work fell on his colleagues and on Hess, who sometimes had to deliver packages himself.

Solicitor General Prelogar told the Supreme Court justices that this "caused problems with the timely delivery of mail, and it actually produced employee retention problems, with one carrier quitting and another carrier transferring and another carrier filing a union grievance. That is an undue hardship under any reasonable standard."

Chrissy Miller, the assistant district representative for the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, a labor union, told LNP — LancasterOnline that Groff's co-workers were required to work extra Sunday hours and were deprived of any Sundays off. "They started to become resentful that Groff was not working on Sundays and they were having to cover his shifts."

Their resentment is understandable.

Groff has pursued his case up to the nation's highest court, which will need to balance the rights of religious Americans in the workplace with the needs of employers.

As conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out during the April 18 oral arguments, the case is complicated because there "can be religious interests on both sides."

A Roman Catholic, for instance, may not wish to work on Sundays, but is not compelled by the church to refrain from Sunday employment. So some religions might get preferential treatment over others based on their practices.

As court observers pointed out, the justices seemed interested in finding middle ground. We'll find out when the court rules, which is expected to be by the end of June.

In the meantime, please let us know your thoughts on this case in letters to the editor. We thank those who already have written on this subject.

Outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Groff said he would tell other workers of faith that "it's important to stand for what you believe."

But when asked what he'd say to co-workers who would need to work Sundays so he could keep the Sabbath, he said he wasn't sure. "I would just say, I honestly don't know."

That's the quandary the Supreme Court is facing.

___

(c)2023 LNP (Lancaster, Pa.)

Visit LNP (Lancaster, Pa.) at lancasteronline.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.