The Supreme Court tried to find common ground Tuesday between employees and their bosses in a major religious liberty dispute over employees’ rights and if they can be forced to work on the Sabbath.
A lawyer representing Gerald Groff, a former postal worker who quit when his religious accommodation to not work on Sundays was denied, told the justices they should overrule precedent dating nearly five decades, saying it has turned out to be hostile to employees’ First Amendment rights.
The 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison held that employers can deny religious requests when a business experiences an “undue hardship” in trying to accommodate an employee.
The problem, the majority of the court recognized Tuesday, is that it is difficult to clearly define what constitutes an undue hardship on any given business — whether it entails the morale of other employees or if it simply comes down to finances.
“Doesn’t this most of the time come down to dollars and cents?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked.
“Anyone running a business in America knows the morals of employees is critical to running a successful business,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said.
Several justices noted that paying an employee a dollar more an hour to cover another’s shift could constitute a hardship on smaller businesses — unlikely, though, in the context of a major employer like the U.S. Postal Service.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the justices to uphold the 1977 precedent, warning that upsetting it could “destabilize” the law that employers have been operating under in making scheduling decisions, transferring employees and approving Sabbath requests.
“Courts are regularly granting accommodations,” Ms. Prelogar told the court.
In Tuesday’s case, she said the post office had other employees quit due to the difficulty in accommodating Mr. Groff.
“This was not some minor inconvenience to the postal service,” Ms. Prelogar said.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch sought to find common ground between the government’s position to retain the legal precedent and Mr. Groff’s request to honor religious accommodations — suggesting the court could clarify when exactly a hardship is met.
Other justices, though, noted that small businesses could feel hardship more easily than employers like the Postal Service or Amazon.
“It’s all contextual,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Tuesday’s case was brought by Gerald Groff, who worked for seven years for the U.S. Postal Service but began to have difficulty observing Sunday as his day of worship under his Christian faith when his employer contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays.
He resigned in 2019, when the USPS office at Holtwood, Pennsylvania, told him he would have to work on Sundays. He filed a federal lawsuit, but lower courts ruled against him.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit also sided with USPS, ruling that the small post office was unduly burdened by accommodating Mr. Groff.
His attorney, Aaron Streett, said a burden on other employees can’t be the sole reason for denying Mr. Groff his accommodation.
“Employees should not be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” said Mr. Streett.
In the landmark 1977 ruling, the Supreme Court said an employer could deny a religious accommodation if it would cause even a minor hardship on the business.
The majority of the justices on Tuesday appeared ready to clarify what level of burden an employer can place on an employee’s religious practice so as not to run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Justice Kavanaugh questioned what a “substantial cost” would be for an employer.
“I’m not sure we can give you a full manual about how it is going to play out,” he said.
Other justices said fellow employees may want to exercise their religion or use a weekend off to watch their children play sports.
“Some of the other employees might want to go to church too,” said Justice Elena Kagan.
Legal experts have said that a ruling for Mr. Groff could upset the airline industry due to its seniority structure. Airlines for America, an advocacy trade group, said in an amicus brief that its industry bases filling flights and airport workers’ shifts under a seniority system.
The group said that a ruling overturning Hardison could dramatically impact the industry, potentially leading to delays, pilots flying more slowly, increased fuel costs and poor customer service.
“[Seniority systems] are integral to the ability of airlines to maintain 24/7 operations 365 days a year, including ensuring that flights take off and land on time as much as possible,” the group argued in its brief.
Amory McAndrew, an employment lawyer at Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, said it isn’t just the airline industry that operates 24/7, noting restaurants, hotels and customer service companies.
“Just about every job — there is a level of seniority impacting your career,” Ms. McAndrew said. “It is more direct when it comes down to scheduling. … There is a possibility that these companies are going to lose workers to other employers.”
Like Airlines for America, the American Postal Service Workers Union filed a brief urging the justices to rule against Mr. Groff. The brief argued his case is a claim for “preferential entitlement.”
The brief noted other mail workers have earned time to spend with their families and days of rest, as well.
“They are citizens equally entitled to a day of rest, and equally protected against Government-mandated sacrifice to facilitate others’ religious exercise,” the union said.
A ruling from the justices is expected by the end of June. The case is Groff v. DeJoy.
