THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DEJOY

ular employee. Though Mr. Groff, an RCA required to work Sundays and Holidays, ended any possibility of a fair rotation by refusing to work on Sundays. By placing the . . . . .burden on his fellow RCA’s, Mr. Groff restricted the rights guaranteed to other employees in the CBA. In fact, the issues became so severe that one employee filed a complaint with the Union that negotiated the CBA. He argued: “Hhe had been forced to work Sundays to cover for [Mr. Groff] in contravention of the [CBA].” 8 Therefore, since Mr. Groff’s actions violated the rights of other employees, he was created an additional, undue hardship.

Though, despite the hardships Mr. Groff’s exemption created, his religious views still deserve protection. The first amendment to the U.S. The Constitution reads: “Con-

The amicus briefs filed with the court emphasize the greater reliance of minority religious groups on workplace accommodations and the importance of this case for upholding religious freedom as a constitutional right. The Postal Office’s failure to accommodate Groff’s religious practice is just one example of the systemic abuse of religious freedoms that the current legal standard affords to employers. Thus, the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Gerald Groff to solve this long overdue problem.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11 gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.” 9 Just like any other citizen, Mr. Groff should be allowed to exercise his religious beliefs freely. Although it’s this paper’s contention that Trans World Atlantic V. Hardison strikes down Mr. Groff’s petition, this paper also believes that the case holds the key to unlocking the free exercise of religion in the workplace. The skeleton of Hardison is perfect—. Iit clearly lays out to future courts that the rights of individuals and corporations should be respected. However, Hardison argues that religious expression should only be protected until the business experiences an undue hardship. Vaguely defined, as the government in this case had to craft their own definition of undue hardship, businesses, individuals, and courts alike have trouble understanding where to draw the line between the rights of individuals and corporations. Therefore, if the Supreme Court or Congress were to create a fair definition of undue hardship. Once clearly defined, the perfect skeleton of Hardison can finally be applied to any situation. Businesses and individuals would have a clear understanding of their rights. Furthermore, employees would understand what their eligibility is for particular jobs and positions. A world where Hardison was more clearly defined would strike a near perfect harmony between freedom of religion and the rights of corporations.