Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian postal employee who wanted Sundays off

A unanimous Supreme Court decision today asks a lower court to re-examine the right of employees to force their religious beliefs on co-workers and the customers they serve. While the decision leaves the issue open to further court scrutiny, it also leaves open the possibility of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in businesses and workplaces.

In the case of Groff v. DeJoy, the court ruled in favor of Gerald Groff, a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) worker who, due to his Christian evangelical religious beliefs, wanted an exemption from working on Sundays. His refusal to work “imposed on his co-workers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale,” the court wrote in its ruling.

Related:

Majorities of Americans oppose religious-based anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination

Even Republican and Christian majorities don’t support anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Groff faced “progressive discipline” for his refusal to work on Sundays until he eventually resigned. He later sued, saying that the USPS’s discipline violated Title VII, a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and other factors. A lower court found in Groff’s favor, and the USPS appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Stay connected to your community

Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.

Daily

Weekly

Good News

Federal law and legal precedent require employers to “reasonably accommodate” workers’ religious practices in a way that inflicts de minimis (minimal) “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” as possible, Vox explained. The Court has asked the lower court to re-examine the case with a stricter understanding of what “undue hardships” means.

In its decision, the Court wrote, “Diverse religious groups tell the Court that the ‘de minimis‘ standard has been used to deny even minor accommodations.” The Court then cited instances where businesses have refused religious accommodations due to the “administrative costs” of changing schedules, re-calculating wages, adjusting workplace policies, or dealing with co-workers’ disapproval.

Instead, the Court wrote that businesses that refuse to accommodate a worker’s religious beliefs must show how such accommodations cause undue hardships in the form of “substantial,” “excessive,” or “unjustifiable” costs, rather than just minimal inconveniences.

“Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, an employer must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship,” the Court wrote.

While the Court’s decision didn’t specifically address the possible LGBTQ+ impact, the lower court (and other courts) will have to consider what reasonable religious accommodations and “undue hardships” actually look like.

In response to the ruling, Karen Loewy, Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice at Lambda Legal, wrote, “It is gratifying that the Supreme Court today recognized that employers may consider the effect a requested accommodation has on others in the workplace in assessing whether the accommodation would substantially burden the conduct of its business.”

“While anti-discrimination laws absolutely require accommodation of religion, some requested accommodations unfairly burden co-workers, impact workplace morale, and expose coworkers to dignitary harms in ways that impose costs and harm the business itself,” Loewy continued. “We must remain vigilant as lower courts apply this standard, particularly where a requested accommodation would result in co-workers facing hostile, discriminatory statements or conduct at work.”

One could easily imagine employees refusing to serve LGBTQ+ patrons, much like the web designer in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, another current Court case about whether Christians can be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Even if a boss isn’t bigoted, accommodating the requests of religious workers could burden the other, less religious workers who have to pull up the resulting slack. Groff himself worked in a post office with just three employees. Because the USPS delivers Amazon packages on Sunday, Groff’s three co-workers were forced to cover for his absence.

Moreover, the case could show the Court’s increasing deference to religious people’s rights at the expense of everyone else’s. The Court’s 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision already allows some businesses with one or a few owners to deny federally required health care to employees based on owners’ religious beliefs, and the Court has moved to the right since that decision was handed down.