{"id":45527,"date":"2023-04-20T08:55:04","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T13:55:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/?p=45527"},"modified":"2023-04-20T08:55:04","modified_gmt":"2023-04-20T13:55:04","slug":"divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/","title":{"rendered":"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON (BP) \u2013<\/strong> The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.<\/p>\n

In arguments approaching two hours, the justices considered a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee\u2019s contention that his belief in observing Sunday as the Sabbath was not properly accommodated. The high court is contemplating whether to revise its interpretation in its 1977 Trans World Airlines v. Hardison decision regarding the standard for accommodating workers\u2019 religious exercise.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion in the case, Groff v. DeJoy, before it adjourns for the term this summer.<\/p>\n

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) had joined in a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the justices to change a 1977 ruling they said has resulted in discrimination against employees who seek to practice their faith. It continued to call for that decision\u2019s revamping after the arguments.<\/p>\n

\u201cReligious liberty protects not only our freedom to believe but also our freedom to live out those beliefs in the public square, including the workplace,\u201d said Hannah Daniel, the ERLC\u2019s policy manager. \u201cAs Justice [Samuel] Alito noted in today\u2019s oral arguments, religious communities are unified in recognizing that the current minimal burden standard under Hardison does not provide adequate protections for religious employees who require accommodations to perform their work without violating their deeply held religious beliefs.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs our brief argued, \u2018A right that exists only when it bothers no one else, is no right at all,\u2019\u201d she told Baptist Press in written comments. \u201cThe court should overturn Hardison and restore the rights of religious employees that have been hampered for too long.\u201d<\/p>\n

After losing in federal court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, Gerald Groff appealed to the Supreme Court. A divided Third Circuit panel had affirmed the lower court\u2019s opinion that the USPS did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to accommodate his religious belief that he should not work on Sunday.<\/p>\n

Groff\u2019s request of the USPS to accommodate his faith constituted an \u201cundue hardship,\u201d the meaning of which is at the heart of the case. In its 1977 Hardison opinion, the Supreme Court ruled an employer suffers an \u201cundue hardship\u201d under Title VII regarding religious accommodation when the price to do so is more than \u201cde minimis,\u201d which means minimal or trivial.<\/p>\n

The \u201cde minimis\u201d standard \u201cmakes a mockery of the English language, and no party truly defends it today,\u201d said Houston lawyer Aaron Streett, who argued on behalf of Groff. \u201c[T]he court can and should construe \u2018undue hardship\u2019 according to its plain text to mean \u2018significant difficulty or expense.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The Americans With Disabilities Act and some states apply the \u201csignificant-difficulty-or-expense\u201d test for religious accommodations, Streett told the justices. \u201c[E]mployers know how to apply the \u2018significant-difficulty-[or]-expense\u2019 standard, and it will not be a problem for them to apply that to religious employees, including as to morale issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

Arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court a \u201csubstantial body of case law\u201d that has followed Hardison \u201cprovides meaningful protection to religious observants.\u201d<\/p>\n

The employer has the burden \u201cto demonstrate undue hardship with concrete evidence,\u201d and \u201clower courts frequently deny \u2018undue hardship\u2019 defenses,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd here Hardison has properly been applied [by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and courts] in the four-plus decades since in light of its facts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Different justices expressed skepticism regarding the arguments from both lawyers. One even sought to find \u201ccommon ground\u201d between both sides.<\/p>\n

Associate Justice Samuel Alito told Prelogar he was \u201creally struck\u201d by her contention Hardison has been properly interpreted to respect the rights of adherents of minority religions. The high court has received friend-of-the-court briefs \u201cby many representatives of many minority religions, Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and they all say that that is just not true, and that Hardison has violated their right to religious liberty,\u201d Alito said.<\/p>\n

Three associate justices \u2013 Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson \u2013 pointed out to Streett that Congress has had more than four decades to change Title VII but has refused to do so.<\/p>\n

\u201c[I]sn\u2019t this a policy question at bottom for Congress?\u201d Jackson said. She expressed concern \u201ca person could fail to get in Congress what they want with respect to changing the statutory standard and then just come to the court and say, \u2018You give it to us.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

He agrees it \u201cis a policy question for Congress, but Congress answered that question in 1972 when it enacted the words \u2018undue hardship,\u2019\u201d Street said. The justices can interpret the text \u201cin a way according with plain meaning,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts told Prelogar \u201cit\u2019s not clear\u201d Hardison and other cases \u201cwould come out the same way\u201d now since the high court has issued a series of opinions in recent years that say \u201cthere really is no Establishment Clause problem if you make accommodations for people\u2019s religious belief.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prelogar said her concern is if the high court announced \u201ca new standard, I think it would come with all the costs of destabilizing this area of the law and unsettling whether the court means to overrule\u201d Hardison or \u201ccall into question all of the established areas of law that have developed that we think have drawn the right lines here.\u201d<\/p>\n

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, meanwhile, proposed the sides reach common ground. \u00a0He suggested the Supreme Court could say the \u201cde minimis\u201d language is \u201cnot the law\u201d and remand the case to the lower court for a decision in light of that guidance. \u00a0Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed sympathetic to that solution.<\/p>\n

Groff is an evangelical Christian who believes Sunday is the Sabbath and should be observed by rest and worship. He was able to practice his sabbatarian belief without a problem when he began working as a postal employee in Lancaster County, Pa., in 2012.<\/p>\n

After the Postal Service began making Amazon deliveries on Sunday, he sought an accommodation for his religious belief. Though his request was initially granted, he eventually was scheduled to work on Sunday and ultimately was disciplined for failing to work when he was scheduled on that day of the week. He resigned in 2019 and filed suit against the USPS, specifically Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, for religious discrimination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":37005,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":"","_wpscp_schedule_draft_date":"","_wpscp_schedule_republish_date":"","_wpscppro_advance_schedule":false,"_wpscppro_advance_schedule_date":"","_wpscppro_custom_social_share_image":0,"_facebook_share_type":"","_twitter_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type":"","_pinterest_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type_page":"","_selected_social_profile":[]},"categories":[177,7,45,8,12,236],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nDivided high court debates rights of religious employees<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Pathway\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"http:\/\/facebook.com\/mbcpathway\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"786\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tom Strode\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mbcpathway\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mbcpathway\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tom Strode\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/\",\"name\":\"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7feae70f953be1bdd89a5a3594933b84\"},\"description\":\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg\",\"width\":1024,\"height\":786,\"caption\":\"United States Supreme Court Building\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/\",\"name\":\"Pathway\",\"description\":\"Baptist & Christian News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7feae70f953be1bdd89a5a3594933b84\",\"name\":\"Tom Strode\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9b02547ab2c5ca3487de32b15f02be?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9b02547ab2c5ca3487de32b15f02be?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tom Strode\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/bpnews.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/author\/tomstrode\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees","description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.","og_url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/","og_site_name":"Pathway","article_publisher":"http:\/\/facebook.com\/mbcpathway","article_published_time":"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":786,"url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Tom Strode","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mbcpathway","twitter_site":"@mbcpathway","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Tom Strode","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/","url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/","name":"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg","datePublished":"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-20T13:55:04+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7feae70f953be1bdd89a5a3594933b84"},"description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments Tuesday (April 18) in a religious freedom case offered no clear indication whether it intends to revisit a previous decision and strengthen the right of workers to practice their beliefs without penalty.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-public-domain.jpg","width":1024,"height":786,"caption":"United States Supreme Court Building"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/2023\/04\/20\/divided-high-court-debates-rights-of-religious-employees\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divided high court debates rights of religious employees"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/","name":"Pathway","description":"Baptist & Christian News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7feae70f953be1bdd89a5a3594933b84","name":"Tom Strode","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9b02547ab2c5ca3487de32b15f02be?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9b02547ab2c5ca3487de32b15f02be?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tom Strode"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/bpnews.net"],"url":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/author\/tomstrode\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45527"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45527"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45528,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45527\/revisions\/45528"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37005"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mbcpathway.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}