Supreme Court Case: Groff vs. Dejoy THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GROFF

by ENMANUEL ACOSTA APARICIO STAFF WRITER

Thispast June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine the extent to which employers should allow for religious accommodations in the workplace. The case revolves around Gerald Groff, a former mailman for the U.S. Postal Service who was facing termination for refusing to work on Sundays. As a strict Sabbatarian Christian, Groff argues that the USPS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate his religious practice. Title VII bars employers from firing their employees for practicing their religion, unless the religious practice cannot be accommodated without causing “undue hardship” to the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Transworld Airlines v. Hardison that an “undue hardship” is met whenever accommodations become more than a ‘de minimis cost’ to the employer. Based on Hardison’s legal standard, the USPS claimed that Groff’s refusal to deliver mail on Sundays resulted in significant costs for the company, as his coworkers had to cover his shifts. Although there are compelling arguments to be made for company rights, the Court should ultimately rule in favor of Groff as the USPS’s claims are based on a dubious legal precedent that leaves religious individuals vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace.

Groff’s appeal is twofold. Firstly, he asks that the Court redefine the legal standard established in the Hardison ruling. He lucidly argues that the threshold for what constitutes an “undue hardship” is too low and makes it easier for employers to discriminate against employees practicing their religion. Instead of a minimal cost, Groff advocates for the Court to interpret an undue hardship as one that involves a “significant difficulty or expense”. This stricter standard would better protect the rights granted to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The business sought to terminate Groff not because of his refusal to work on Sundays, but due to their unwillingness to grant an exemption for his religious beliefs. Thus, these arguments shouldn’t be regarded as ‘undue hardship’. In other words, there is no substantive indicator that accommodating Groff’s religious beliefs would have caused a ‘significant difficulty or expense’. The district court’s ruling in favor of the Postal Office was based on questionable evidence that the Postal Office themselves produced, showcasing how easily employers can evade religious accommodations in the workplace using the current “de minimis” standard.

In this specific case, the Postal Office’s claim that Groff’s religious practices caused workplace disruption and decreased employee morale is a result of their refusal to accommodate his beliefs in the first place. Had the Postal Office properly accommodated Groff, his coworkers would not have developed “resentment towards management”.

Secondly, Groff asks the Court to clarify whether an employer can demonstrate undue hardship by merely showing the employee’s actions to be a burden on his coworkers rather than the business itself. In his dissenting opinion, judge Thomas Hardiman pointed this out by stating that “a burden on coworkers isn’t the same thing as a burden on the employer’s business”. Such particularities can – and were – overlooked under the current legal standard. Furthermore, considering coworkers’ discomforts toward an employee’s religious accommodations can lead to the systemic reinstatement of discrimination in the workplace.

Several minority religious groups, including the Sikh Coalition, Muslim Advocates and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, have voiced their support for CONTINUED ON PAGE 24