Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of former postal worker Gerald Groff. After years of working as a mailman, Groff came into conflict with his employers when he was told he would need to make Amazon deliveries on Sundays. As a Christian, Groff informed his supervisors that he could not work on the Lord’s Day. The dispute turned into a standoff and Groff eventually resigned rather than waiting to be fired. But he argues that he never should have been forced into that position because the Post Office’s demands violated his First Amendment right to religious freedom. The eventual ruling in this case could have serious implications for employers all over the country.
Gerald Groff liked his work as a postal employee in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. For years, he delivered mail and all manner of packages: a car bumper, a mini refrigerator, a 70-pound box of horseshoes for a blacksmith. But when an Amazon.com contract with the Postal Service required carriers to start delivering packages on Sundays, Groff balked. A Christian, he told his employers that he couldn’t deliver packages on the Lord’s Day.
Now Groff’s dispute with the Post Office has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which will consider his case Tuesday. Lower courts have sided with the Post Office, which says Groff’s demand for Sundays off meant extra work for other employees and caused tension.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination in employment. But the law contains something of a loophole, saying that employers must accommodate workers’ religious practices unless that accommodation would create “an undue hardship” for the business. It’s that definition of “undue hardship” that is being put to the test in this lawsuit.
There is no basis to question Groff’s sincerity in his religious faith. He grew up in a Mennonite family and has gone on multiple missionary excursions taking him to four continents preaching The Word. So his conviction in honoring the Sabbath isn’t in doubt.
But the Post Office will continue to argue that if they allowed Groff to pass on Sunday work, then anyone in the organization could immediately claim to hold the same faith and soon they would be unable to do any sort of work on Sundays. But Groff seems to have demonstrated good faith for his part. He voluntarily gave up seniority on the job and offered to work extra shifts and holidays in exchange for not being required to work on Sundays. He even accepted a transfer to a smaller Post Office that wasn’t doing Amazon deliveries yet.
This case will come down to a question of whether or not the precedent set in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison in the 1970s holds up. The court ruled in favor of the employer in that case, citing the need for an awareness of when employees’ religious restrictions could impose an undue hardship on the business. But Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have all previously opined that Hardison should be looked at again. Given the current makeup of the court, Groff probably stands a fair chance of prevailing. What that would mean for employers all over the country remains to be seen.
