Work or Religion?
GROFF V. DEJOY
The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to exercise their religion.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed to protect the constitutional rights of individuals in the workplace.
�How far does the Civil Rights Act go in protecting the religious rights of employees?��This case explores this issue.
Gerald Groff was hired by the U.S. Postal Service in 2012. At that time, the USPS did not deliver mail on Sundays. However, in 2013, the USPS entered into an agreement with Amazon to deliver packages, including on Sunday.
www.washingtontimes.com
Groff, an evangelical Christian, refused to work on Sundays, since it was the Sabbath and he believed it was a day of rest. For a couple of years, he was allowed to work other shifts throughout the week.
In 2016, Groff was informed he would have to work on Sundays during the Postal Service’s peak season, from mid-November into January.
www.reforestemospatagon.com
Instead, he transferred to a smaller station that would not require him to work on Sundays. A few months later, that station began to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays and once again, Groff was expected to work on Sunday. � �
www.newideablog.com
Groff offered to work extra shifts to avoid working on Sundays. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the postmaster scheduled Groff to work on Sundays, but allowed others to volunteer to take Groff’s shifts. �
JG-TC.com
When there were no volunteers to work Groff’s Sunday shifts, Groff was disciplined for his failure to report to work. Ultimately, Groff resigned from the Postal Service in January 2019. �
www.whasll.com
Briefly summarize Groff’s dilemma.��Briefly summarize the conflict that exists between Groff and the U.S. Postal Service.��If you were one of Groff’s fellow employees, would you support Groff or the U.S. Postal Service? Why?����
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based upon their religion. Groff filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Postal Service discriminated against him based upon his religious practices.�
JG-TC.com
Title VII offers a defense for employers. The employer will not be guilty of violating the law if the employer can show that the worker’s religious practice cannot reasonably be accommodated without “undue hardship.”��Title VII seeks to balance the rights of workers and employers. On one hand, it protects the religious activities of the workers. On the other hand, it protects the employers from undue hardship in accommodating the workers. ����
If the U.S. Postal Service could show that accommodating Groff’s religious practice would cause undue hardship, then it would not be guilty of violating this law.
The key, then, was determining whether accommodating Groff would lead to “undue hardship.”
The federal district court ruled against Groff. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
The court ruled that giving Groff an exemption from working on Sunday caused more than a de minimis cost, by requiring coworkers to cover his shifts or to require other carriers to deliver more mail.
The federal district court ruled against Groff. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
Because accommodating Groff’s religious beliefs caused an “undue hardship” under the TWA standard that existed as precedent, the U.S. Postal Service was not required to accommodate Groff’s religious practices.
In his appeal, Groff makes a number of arguments. First, he argues that TWA v. Hardison should be reversed, and the definition of undue hardship provided in that case be rejected. �
www.independenttribune.com
Groff argued that “undue hardship,” by its very nature, should be much more than the minimal burden specified in the TWA case.
He contends that undue hardship must impose a “significant difficulty or expense” for the employer.
“Undue hardship” should not mean that the employer encountered little more than minimal cost. �Such a standard made it possible for employers to disregard the religious beliefs of an employee and not be held responsible for doing so. ��Do you agree with Groff’s argument? What are the consequences of changing the standard?��Would this new rule apply to all religions, regardless of size?�
Groff argued that one of the factors that justify overturning a precedent is extreme consequences in applying the precedent.
The government argued that the TWA standard should not be abandoned, that the Postal Service did experience undue hardship, and that the lower court decisions should be upheld. �
The government argued that the Court’s definition of “undue hardship” has existed for decades. Congress has known about this definition for decades.
If Congress believed the Court was twisting their idea of “undue hardship” with its ruling in TWA, it had almost fifty years to change the law and to require significantly more than de minimis impact. But it has chosen not to do so.
The inaction of Congress demonstrates that the definition of “undue hardship” provided by the Court is acceptable to Congress.
If the very body that created the “undue hardship” concept is willing to accept the Court’s interpretation of that language, shouldn’t that end the debate?
What do you think?
At oral argument, some members of the Supreme Court suggested that undue hardship might be present in allowing Groff to miss work on Sundays, when others have to do his job or allow the job to go undone. Those whose religion allows them to work on Sundays or those with no religion are left to do Groff’s work. �Is that fair?�
Do you think the fact that other employees had to do Groff’s work on Sundays creates an undue hardship?
Would Groff receiving special treatment have an impact on morale? Could that create undue hardship?�
In summation for Groff…�Section VII of the Civil Rights Act was designed to protect the individual-individuals like Groff. The law states that employees are not to be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs and practices. This law is designed to bolster the part of the First Amendment that protects free exercise of religion. �� ��
In summation for Groff…�The idea that those rights can be disregarded simply because it would impose little more than minimal costs is inconsistent with the whole reason for protecting civil rights. In fact, the test for an undue burden should be reset to a standard that is more favorable to the religious freedoms of the individual.�
In summation for the government …�The Civil Rights Act was indeed a statement of the importance of, among other things, religious freedom in the workplace. However, even the Congress that enacted the Civil Rights Act recognized that it would not always protect the worker.
In summation for the government …�Even the Congress that enacted the Civil Rights Act recognized that there would be situations where it was just not possible to give employees everything they want in the name of their religion. This is one of those situations.�
Put yourself on the Supreme Court. How would you rule on the question of whether the Postal Service violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in not accommodating Groff’s desire to not work on Sundays?��In favor of Groff and overturning the TWA standard?��In favor of the government and maintaining the TWA standard?��What factors would you look to in making your decision?��