Groff v. DeJoy: Statutory Religious Liberty

  

 

Gerald Groff worked for the United States Postal Service as a mailman.

When he was hired, the Post Office did not deliver mail on Sundays, so there was no conflict with his religious exercise regarding the Sabbath.

However, in 2013, the Post Office entered into a contract with Amazon to provide Sunday delivery service for Amazon’s demanding customers who want everything they purchase right away.

 The Post Office made some attempts to accommodate Groff, but eventually ordered him to work Sundays.

He refused to work on the Sabbath, was disciplined, and finally resigned to avoid being fired.

Groff sued the Postal Service under Title VII, claiming that it could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship” on the conduct of its business.

 The district court concluded the requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the Postal Service and granted it summary judgment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.

The issue before SCOTUS was whether Title VII’s requirement that employers accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” required the Post Office to grant Groff’s request for Sabbath accommodation.

So, what does "undue hardship" mean? 

The problem for Groff was that in 1977 the Supreme Court decided a case—Trans World Airlines v. Hardison—that was interpreted by the lower courts as defining undue hardship to mean any effort or cost that is “more than de minimis.”

So, does undue hardship mean undue hardship?

Or merely a slight, itsy bitsy, de minimis hardship?

I can almost hear Scalia’s voice from the grave saying "undue hardship means undue hardship, not de minimis hardship."

Unanimous Opinion by Justice Alito

The Court must have heard Nino too, because in a unanimous opinion it ruled for Groff
--and held that an “undue hardship” is shown when the burden of accommodating the employee is “substantial in the overall context of an employers’ business.” (p.15-16) So, undue hardship does not mean a little bitty de minimis hardship…it means “substantial additional costs…or expenditures.”
An undue hardship must be “more severe” than a mere burden and “have to rise to the level of hardship” that is “excessive” or “unjustifiable.” (p.16)

Moreover, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate “that he is unable to reasonably accommodate…an employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of his business.” (p.6)

Still more, quoting Justice Alito’s unanimous opinion, the fact that a particular hardship “is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered ‘undue.’” (p. 20)

As one commentator has concluded: “[A]ntipathy to religion or to accommodation cannot form the basis for an undue hardship defense, [and] the burden is on the employer to demonstrate its substantial costs….undue hardship means what it says, and employers can or longer use it to shirk their responsibilities to religious employees under Title VII.”