(NewsNation) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in the case of a former mail carrier who says he was forced out of his job because it conflicted with his religious obligations.
Gerald Groff — an Evangelical Christian — requested not to work his U.S. Postal Service job on Sundays after the postal service partnered with Amazon in 2013.
Groff resigned in 2019, after receiving multiple disciplinary letters.
“We really can’t go back and change what happened to me,” Groff told the Associated Press, who ultimately quit his job over the Sunday shifts. But he says that other people “shouldn’t have to choose between their job and their faith.”
What is the case about?
Groff said Sunday shifts conflicted with his religious obligations, which include the Christian Sabbath, or day of rest.
USPS tried to accommodate Groff until they say it was no longer possible because of staffing and new rotating Sunday shift requirements. In those instances, Groff didn’t report for Sunday shifts, Reuters reported.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in Groff’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling, which rejected his religious discrimination claim.
The USPS argued in court filings that Groff’s regular absence meant other employees had to deliver more mail and led to “resentment toward management.”
What does the law say?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Under Title VII, an employer must meet a worker’s religious accommodation request within reason. That typically means the accommodation can’t require what is referred to under the law as “undue hardship,” which is the main issue at hand in this case.
On Tuesday, SCOTUS justices will hear arguments as to whether Groff’s request to not work on Sundays was an undue hardship on his former co-workers or the business itself.
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, courts have found undue hardship in instances when an accommodation causes co-workers to carry the share of the accommodated employee’s “potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”
What implications could it have?
Some have argued the current standard for determining “undue hardship” disproportionately impacts religions like Islam, Judaism and Hinduism, Reuters reported.
Groff’s attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to overturn that precedent and instead require employers to show why and accommodation would be difficult or expensive before the request is denied. That’s a higher standard than what currently exists and aligns more with how accommodations are determined for people with disabilities.
Others worry that changing the standard could pave the way for employers or other employees to impose their own religious beliefs on others at work.
A “conservative Christian” employee, for example, might have a stronger case seeking a religious accommodation to refuse to use the correct pronouns when addressing a transgender co-worker, University of Miami School of Law professor Caroline Mala Corbin told Reuters.
The court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.
