THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DEJOY

by JACK MARTINEZ STAFF WRITER

In2016, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) broke over 200 years of protocol by delivering mail on Sundays. A new deal with Amazon, which precipitated the change in delivery schedule, held that workers must pick up Sunday shifts to meet the increase in demand during the holiday season. Though for Gerald Groff, a postal worker, this new schedule posed a problem. As a strict observer of the Ssabbath, Mr. Groff refused to work on Sundays. He missed shifts and made the Post Office find other employees to cover for him during the busy holiday season. Eventually, the post office demanded that he work on Sundays, and Mr. Groff sued, believing his first amendment rights had been violated. Although Mr. Groff’s argument should be considered, the Supreme Court should side with the USPS as Mr. Groff’s refusal to work infringed on the rights of the business and of other employees. Firstly, Mr. Groff’s actions placed a significant strain on the Post Office and Post Office staff. In 1977, the Supreme court heard similar arguments in Trans World Atlantic vV. Hardison. 1 In this case, which concerned a Jewish man who refused to work on Saturdays to observe the Ssabbath, the court found that a business must provide religious accommodations to workers unless those accommodations create a “more than de minimis cost” 2 on the business. This means that, if the business is expected to provide accommodations that result in undue hardship (iI.e. fFinancially or non-financial difficulties), 3, then the business is not required to provide that accommodation. This decision attempts to balance the rights of individuals as well as corporations. Not only does it carve out a specific protection for those with religious exemptions, but it ensures that businesses and other employees aren’t suffering exorbitant costs associated with those exemptions. In this case, Mr. Groff’s actions clearly precipitated exorbitant costs for other employees as well as the USPS. At USPS, Mr. Groff worked as a Rural Carrier Associate , or (RCA).

4. An RCA is a part time employee the USPS strained to find workers who would be willing to pick up additional hours during the holiday season. The Postmaster General of Groff’s station reported asking dozens of other RCA’s to pick up extra routes and hours to meet demand. The Postmaster Ggeneral reported that finding other employees to cover for Mr. Groff week in and week out was “significantly time consuming.” who is asked to fill in for extra shifts. In the job description, the USPS requires that RCA’s be “flexible.”

4 Though, when the new Sunday delivery schedule was created, Mr. Groff refused to work. Instead of applying for a new position that required less flexibility, Mr. Groff demanded to be accommodated. To work around Mr. Groff’s schedule,

5 Furthermore, when other employees learned that they would be required to pick up additional hours, they developed “resentment towards management.” 5 Being a small office, these hardships were enough for two lower courts to agree 6 with the post office. Since Mr. Groff ignored the requirements of his employment, he forced management to lose money by focusing on his scheduling difficulties rather than their primary role to deliver mail. Furthermore, because employees resigned over the tense atmosphere Mr. Groff’s exemption created in the office, monetary problems snowballed into a significant issue. Therefore, since Mr. Groff’s exemption clearly created economic hardship for the USPS, the Hardison ruling clears the company from recognizing Mr. Groff’s religious exemption. Although Mr. Groff’s actions placed significant hardship on USPS, it also placed hardship on the employees of USPS. In 2016, a union representing postal workers entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the USPS. In the CBA, members agreed that the USPS must task special deliveries to part time workers whose sole purpose is to work on Sundays or holidays. 7. This CBA stipulated these special deliveries would be staffed on a rotating basis, so as not to burden any particCONTINUED ON PAGE 24