THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GROFF

. . .Groff’s appeal. In an amicus brief filed with the court, these groups argued that the Hardison ruling is harmful to minority religious groups and that the Supreme Court should interpret “undue hardship” as having its ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning at the time the statute was enacted. Echoing Groff, they point to dictionary definitions and other statutes, which view an undue hardship as one that imposes “significant cost”.

The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs also filed a brief, arguing that the Hardi-

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10 son ruling gives a “stingy interpretation” to a civil-rights amendment designed to grant fair opportunities for devout adherents to religious principles. The document highlights the disparity between the legal accommodations made for other factors, such as age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy and paternity, and the lack of accommodations for religious observance. The brief also lists numerous cases in which the Hardison ruling has impaired employment opportunities for Jewish Sabbath-observing Americans.