The Supreme Court has made a decision that will have major implications for workers’ religious freedoms.
Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who had encountered difficulties in obtaining Sundays off to observe his Sabbath. Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service employee, faced a scheduling conflict when the Postal Service initiated weekend package deliveries in collaboration with Amazon.
The main issue of the case centered around accommodating religious practices while considering the burden on colleagues and organizational operations. Groff’s legal representation sought the Court’s intervention to overturn a 1977 precedent that facilitated employers’ ability to deny similar requests. Rather than completely overturning the precedent, the Court chose to send a message to lower courts, encouraging them to interpret the 46-year-old ruling more favorably towards employees.
This ruling carries implications beyond Groff’s specific case, potentially influencing situations where workplace rules clash with religious practices, including matters like religious attire. Some expressed concerns that the decision might extend to religious conduct at work, granting employees greater latitude to express personal beliefs that might differ from those upheld by their employers or coworkers.
Previously, both a U.S. District Court and the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had ruled in favor of the Postal Service, highlighting the complexity of the legal debate.
Groff, who had dedicated years to missionary work in Africa and Asia, sought a career that would accommodate his Sabbath observance. Initially, his supervisors exempted him from working on Sundays as long as he covered other shifts. However, the task of finding volunteers to fill those Sunday shifts proved challenging, and by 2018, Groff had already missed 24 of them, resulting in escalating disciplinary actions.
Reflecting on his experience, Groff, a 45-year-old Pennsylvanian, shared the toll it took on him, revealing, “I lived under a cloud of thinking any day I could report to work… and then be told that I was terminated.”
In 2019, he ultimately resigned from the Postal Service, having endured two years of uncertainty and stress.
This Supreme Court ruling, while not entirely transformative in scope, serves as an important marker in the ongoing dialogue surrounding religious freedoms and workplace accommodation. Advocates for religious freedom have shared the decision demonstrates the Court’s intention to encourage more generous interpretations of existing precedents, which could potentially shaping the future treatment of similar cases in lower courts.
