Current:Home > ContactWho bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work? -FutureWise Finance
Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work?
View
Date:2025-04-16 20:02:41
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in an important case that tests how far employers must go to accommodate the religious views of their employees.
Not only does federal law make it illegal to discriminate in employment based on religion, but it also requires that employers reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of workers as long as the accommodation would not impose an "undue hardship on the employer's business." But what is an undue hardship? Congress didn't elaborate, so the Supreme Court had to define the term.
The background to the case
Forty-six years ago, the court, by a lopsided margin, ruled that an employer need not accommodate a worker's desire to avoid work on the Sabbath if that would mean operating short-handed or regularly paying premium wages to replacement workers. The court went on to say that employers should not have to bear more than what it called a "de minimis," or trifling, cost. That "de minimis" language has sparked a lot of criticism over the years. But Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to provide greater accommodations for religious observers, including those who object to working on the Sabbath.
Now, however, religious groups of every kind are pressing a new group of more conservative justices to overturn or modify the court's earlier ruling.
At the center of the case is Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian.
"I believe in a literal keeping of the Lord's Day," Groff said. "It's the entire day as a day of rest and ... spending time with fellow believers. But most of all, just to honor God and keep the day special unto him," he says.
Starting in 2012, Groff worked for the U.S. Postal Service as a carrier associate in rural Pennsylvania. These rural carriers are non-career employees who fill in for more senior career employees during absences. Initially, Groff had no problem, because rural carriers were not required to work on Sundays. But in 2013, the Postal Service signed a contract with Amazon to deliver its packages, and that, of course, meant Sunday deliveries.
In a contract negotiated with the union, the Postal Service established a process for scheduling employees for Sunday and holiday Amazon deliveries. The process first called for non-career employees like Groff to fill in the gaps. Then, volunteers willing to work Sundays and holidays would be called, and if none of this was sufficient to meet demand, the rural associate and assistant carriers would be assigned on a regular rotating basis.
The problem for Groff was that he didn't want to ever work Sundays, and the problem for the Postal Service was — and is — that it is chronically understaffed, especially in rural areas. To solve that problem, the Postal Service pools its employees from multiple post offices in a rural area to work on a regular Sunday rotation.
Groff, facing potential disciplinary action for refusal to report for Sunday work, quit and sued the Postal Service for failure to accommodate his religious views. Representing him is the First Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian organization. It is asking the court to throw out its 1977 decision and declare that an undue hardship would have to be a "significant difficulty or expense," instead of "more than a de minimis cost to a business."
"They would have to pay him overtime anyway," Hiram Sasser, First Liberty's general counsel said. "So there's no extra expense."
USPS' argument
The Postal Service counters that Groff's lawyers are mischaracterizing the way the court's 1977 decision has been applied in practice. Just three years after the decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued rules further defining what an undue hardship means — rules that are more deferential to the religious views of employees.
The Postal Service contends that under those more generous rules, accommodating Groff still would have imposed an undue hardship on the Postal Service as a business by requiring it to operate with insufficient staff in a manner that would so burden other employees that substantial numbers would transfer or quit their jobs. The Postal Service argues that this qualifies as an undue hardship on its business under any standard.
Tuesday's argument will, of course, be before a court that is dramatically different from the court that decided what it means to accommodate religious views in the workplace nearly a half-century ago. That court sought to balance burdens, while the current court has consistently and explicitly shifted the balance to favor religiously observant groups, whether those groups are religious employers or religious employees.
veryGood! (3244)
Related
- Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
- Jimmy Buffett: 10 of his best songs including 'Margaritaville' and 'Come Monday'
- Minnesota prison on lockdown after about 100 inmates refused to return to cells amid heat wave
- Lobstermen Face Hypoxia in Outer Cape Waters
- Which apps offer encrypted messaging? How to switch and what to know after feds’ warning
- More small airports are being cut off from the air travel network. This is why
- In the pivotal South Carolina primary, Republican candidates search for a path against Donald Trump
- New FBI-validated Lahaina wildfire missing list has 385 names
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- Divorce Is Not an Option: How Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith Built an Enduring Marriage
Ranking
- A Mississippi company is sentenced for mislabeling cheap seafood as premium local fish
- Ukraine's troops show CBS News how controversial U.S. cluster munitions help them hold Russia at bay
- On the Road celebrates Labor Day with 85-year-old hospital cleaner working her dream job
- Iga Swiatek’s US Open title defense ends with loss to Jelena Ostapenko in fourth round
- Mets have visions of grandeur, and a dynasty, with Juan Soto as major catalyst
- Living It Up With Blue Ivy, Rumi and Sir Carter: The Unusual World of Beyoncé and Jay-Z's 3 Kids
- Whatever happened to this cartoonist's grandmother in Wuhan? She's 16 going on 83!
- Iga Swiatek’s US Open title defense ends with loss to Jelena Ostapenko in fourth round
Recommendation
The FTC says 'gamified' online job scams by WhatsApp and text on the rise. What to know.
As G20 leaders prepare to meet in recently flooded New Delhi, climate policy issues are unresolved
Endangered red wolves need space to stay wild. But there’s another predator in the way — humans
Turkey has failed to persuade Russia to rejoin the Ukraine grain deal
New data highlights 'achievement gap' for students in the US
Prescriptions for fresh fruits and vegetables help boost heart health
Smash Mouth frontman Steve Harwell dies at 56
Ex-Smash Mouth vocalist Steve Harwell enters hospice care, 'being cared for by his fiancée'