The Supreme Court Says You Might Be Able to Say “No” to Working on Sunday

 

This Supreme Court Decision last week went under the radar, but it has some significant implications for believers. Here is the summary of the case.

Petitioner Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian who believes for religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. In 2012, Groff took a mail delivery job with the United States Postal Service. Groff’s position generally did not involve Sunday work, but that changed after USPS agreed to begin facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon. To avoid the requirement to work Sundays on a rotating basis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station that did not make Sunday deliveries. After Amazon deliveries began at that station as well, Groff remained unwilling to work Sundays, and USPS redistributed Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other USPS staff. Groff received “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays, and he eventually resigned. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). The District Court granted summary judgment to USPS. The Third Circuit affirmed based on this Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, which it construed to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.” 35 F. 4th 162, 174, n. 18 (quoting 432 U. S., at 84). The Third Circuit found the de minimis cost standard met here, concluding that exempting Groff from Sunday work had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.” 35 F. 4th, at 175. Held: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

The Postal Service argued that Groff would not be exempt from working on Sundays because it was disruptive to the workplace and a hardship on fellow employees and their morale. The High Court overturned the lower court and said that was not a good enough reason. 

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket – a nonprofit public interest law firm that has represented religious clients at the Supreme Court – called Thursday’s decision “very significant.” 

Now, “the employer can’t just say, well, it’ll cost me a little more money to have somebody work overtime. Or the other employees won’t like that religious exemption, so I’m going to not give it to you,” Rienzi said. “The court made clear that the employer is supposed to accommodate most of the time.” (USA Today)

 The excuse must be greater than it’s just inconvenient for the employer. The religious accommodation must substantial impact on the ability of the employer to do business.

There are two encouraging things about this for people of faith. It further establishes the idea of religious accommodation in our culture. Any time there is an increased recognition that people of faith have the right to practice their faith, it is a good thing. It is also encouraging that this was a unanimous decision by the court. It is hard to imagine that this divided court could rule unanimously on anything, let alone a case that has a positive impact on the lives of people of faith.

It will be interesting to see how the impact of this case works out in real life. The test for denying religious accommodation has now gotten substantially more stringent. Certainly, some jobs will require Sunday work just because of the nature of the job—police officers, nurses, and other emergency personnel for instance. But the days of high schoolers having to work Sundays at the local hamburger joint (or be fired) might be over.

I wonder how many believers will actually now press the matter at work.

The religious accommodation principle will apply to other areas as well, such as modest attire, hijabs for Muslim women, High Holy Days for Jews and others. Freedom for Christians also mandates freedom for others. We should rejoice in that, not despise it.

If employers have to pay significantly higher shift differentials to fill out shifts on Sundays, they might be able to argue that religious accommodation will indeed result in “substantially increased costs” to the company. However, in today’s employment environment, most employers will make a lot of accommodations to retain employees.

The practical result should be that Christians should be emboldened to ask for Sunday off in order to worship their Lord on the Lord’s Day. They can point to this ruling for legal justification and employers are not legally allowed to just say “no.”