• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
MENUMENU
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • FlaglerLive Board of Directors
    • Comment Policy
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Values
  • Live Calendar
  • Submit Obituary
  • Submit an Event
  • Support FlaglerLive
  • Advertise on FlaglerLive (386) 503-3808
  • Search Results

FlaglerLive

No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

MENUMENU
  • Flagler
    • Flagler County Commission
    • Beverly Beach
    • Economic Development Council
    • Flagler History
    • Mondex/Daytona North
    • The Hammock
    • Tourist Development Council
  • Palm Coast
    • Palm Coast City Council
    • Palm Coast Crime
  • Bunnell
    • Bunnell City Commission
    • Bunnell Crime
  • Flagler Beach
    • Flagler Beach City Commission
    • Flagler Beach Crime
  • Cops/Courts
    • Circuit & County Court
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • Federal Courts
    • Flagler 911
    • Fire House
    • Flagler County Sheriff
    • Flagler Jail Bookings
    • Traffic Accidents
  • Rights & Liberties
    • Fourth Amendment
    • First Amendment
    • Privacy
    • Second Amendment
    • Seventh Amendment
    • Sixth Amendment
    • Sunshine Law
    • Third Amendment
    • Religion & Beliefs
    • Human Rights
    • Immigration
    • Labor Rights
    • 14th Amendment
    • Civil Rights
  • Schools
    • Adult Education
    • Belle Terre Elementary
    • Buddy Taylor Middle
    • Bunnell Elementary
    • Charter Schools
    • Daytona State College
    • Flagler County School Board
    • Flagler Palm Coast High School
    • Higher Education
    • Imagine School
    • Indian Trails Middle
    • Matanzas High School
    • Old Kings Elementary
    • Rymfire Elementary
    • Stetson University
    • Wadsworth Elementary
    • University of Florida/Florida State
  • Economy
    • Jobs & Unemployment
    • Business & Economy
    • Development & Sprawl
    • Leisure & Tourism
    • Local Business
    • Local Media
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Taxes
  • Commentary
    • The Conversation
    • Pierre Tristam
    • Diane Roberts
    • Guest Columns
    • Byblos
    • Editor's Blog
  • Culture
    • African American Cultural Society
    • Arts in Palm Coast & Flagler
    • Books
    • City Repertory Theatre
    • Flagler Auditorium
    • Flagler Playhouse
    • Flagler Youth Orchestra
    • Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra
    • Palm Coast Arts Foundation
    • Special Events
  • Elections 2022
    • Amendments and Referendums
    • Presidential Election
    • Campaign Finance
    • City Elections
    • Congressional
    • Constitutionals
    • Courts
    • Governor
    • Polls
    • Voting Rights
  • Florida
    • Federal Politics
    • Florida History
    • Florida Legislature
    • Florida Legislature
    • Ron DeSantis
  • Health & Society
    • Flagler County Health Department
    • Ask the Doctor Column
    • Health Care
    • Health Care Business
    • Covid-19
    • Children and Families
    • Medicaid and Medicare
    • Mental Health
    • Poverty
    • Violence
  • All Else
    • Daily Briefing
    • Americana
    • Obituaries
    • News Briefs
    • Weather and Climate
    • Wildlife

How Much ‘Religious Accommodation’ Are Employers Responsible For?

February 17, 2023 | FlaglerLive | 2 Comments

religious accommodations workplace
A few times a day at work. (Imad Alassiry on Unsplash)

By Charles J. Russo

Imagine you own a business with a few dozen employees. One, who is Muslim, asks if she can use a meeting room a few times a day for brief prayers – one of the five pillars of Islam. Another, who observes the Jewish Sabbath, says he cannot work on Saturdays. Yet another, a Christian, requests to no longer work on Sundays, one of the shop’s busier days.




The U.S. Supreme Court will soon address the extent to which employers must accommodate employees, if at all, in similar circumstances.

A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.

Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself.



Sunday deliveries

Groff’s “religious beliefs dictate that Sunday is meant for worship and rest,” according to court documents. He went to work for the USPS in Pennsylvania in 2012. Controversy began a year later, when USPS signed an agreement with the online retail giant Amazon to make deliveries throughout the week, including on Sundays. The success of Sunday deliveries was critical to the postal service, according to court filings.

Groff was initially exempted from working on his Sabbath, as long as he could get someone to cover his shifts. However, supervisors told him that he would have to be available during the peak holiday season.

Groff then transferred to another post office in the region that did not deliver on Sundays. However, it eventually began to, and Groff did not report to work on at least 24 Sundays. Also, he rejected the postmaster’s offer to permit him to attend religious services on Sunday mornings and report to work afterward, an accommodation similar to what the postmaster provided to other employees.

Groff contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which agreed that, at first appearance, it looked as though he might have had a claim for failure to accommodate but was not subjected to discrimination.

After facing discipline and workplace tension, and having filed two more complaints with the commission, Groff resigned in January 2019, alleging that officials had failed to accommodate his religious beliefs.

A person walks while holding two packages under his arm.
The U.S. Postal Service partnered with Amazon for Sunday deliveries.
The Good Brigade/Digital Vision via Getty Images

From the post office to the courts

Groff then filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a far-reaching federal statute that forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color, sex and national origin. However, the court held that USPS officials had offered reasonable accommodations.




Groff appealed, but in a 2-1 judgment, the 3rd Circuit affirmed in favor of USPS, relying on two Supreme Court cases.

In the first case that the 3rd Circuit relied on, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Supreme Court had ruled that employers need not accommodate the religious needs of employees if doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost.” Ever since this 1977 decision, employers have generally used the Hardison decision to refuse accommodations deemed more than “de minimis.”

In the second case that the 3rd Circuit cited, Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII as meaning that once employers offer an employee reasonable accommodations – even if not the requested accommodations – officials are not obligated to do anything else if the original request would have created undue hardships on other workers.

The Supreme Court’s turn

Groff’s case highlights the tension between Title VII’s actual words – which require employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for time away from duties – and the court’s interpretation of them in the Hardison case, which does not require employers to bear more than “de minimis” costs. Groff’s attorneys are also asking the court to settle whether costs to other employees – such as having to cover more Sunday shifts – count as “undue hardship” on the business itself.

In advance of the oral arguments, four members of the Supreme Court appear to be skeptical of the “de minimis” interpretation in Hardison. In a decision for another case, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, criticized Hardison as inadequate, writing that “de minimis” “does not represent the most likely interpretation of the statutory term ‘undue hardship.’”

In yet another case, Gorsuch agreed that the Hardison rationale “dramatically revised – really, undid – Title VII’s undue hardship test.” Under its definition, “the company had no obligation to provide [the] requested accommodation because doing so would have cost the company something (anything) more than a trivial amount.”




The court has been supportive of religious freedom claims in its most recent cases, leading some analysts to anticipate change is in the offing.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Groff, though, this much is reasonably certain: The justices will usher in a new era of employer-employee relations with regard to religious accommodations.

Charles J. Russo is Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences and Research Professor of Law at the University of Dayton.


The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.

Previous Conversations:

  • Understanding the Heat Dome: Why America Is Baking
  • Endorsements Aren’t As Influential as You Think
  • Wiccan Celebrations and the Permanence of Change
  • Privacy Isn’t In the Constitution. But It’s Everywhere in Constitutional Law.
  • Anti-Trans Legislation and Lawsuits Are Pushing back Against Chosen Pronouns
  • How Mike Pence’s Unremarkable Actions on Jan. 6 Saved the Nation
  • Blaspheming Human Rights: The Hypocrisy at the Core of Authoritarian Muslim Nations
  • There Is No One ‘Religious View’ on Abortion
  • Inflation Is Spiking. Can the Fed Raise Interest Rates Without Spiking Unemployment, Too?
  • Blaming ‘Evil’ Is Not Enough
  • Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Diminish Mass Shootings? Yes.
  • Crowded Primaries Are Good for Extremists, Bad for Voters
  • To Get Safe Schools, Mental Health Resources Are Critical
  • Antarctica’s Riskiest Glacier Is Losing Its Grip
  • The Legal Age to Buy Assault Weapons Doesn’t Make Sense

See the Full Conversation Archives
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
You and your neighbors collectively read our articles about 25,000 times each day (that's not a typo) with up to 65,000 daily reads during emergencies like hurricanes. Flagler County residents rely on FlaglerLive for essential, bold and analytical journalism that cannot be found anywhere else. But we depend on your support. Please join our December fund drive! If you donate the cost of a scoop of ice cream, you will be helping us continue to provide comprehensive local news and honest, serious journalism for our community. If you can donate more or become a monthly donor, even better. Donations are tax deductible since FlaglerLive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donate by clicking anywhere in this box. Think of it as buying a scoop, in every sense of the term!  
All donors' identities are kept confidential and anonymous.
   

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ed says

    February 19, 2023 at 9:50 am

    I certainly do not profess to know what side of this debate the Supreme Court will come down on, but I will recant the anecdotal experience of my wife who was a registered nurse in labor and delivery as well as the neonatal intensive care unit(nicu).
    Shifts were normally 12 hours and there were many days due to staffing issues that she could not take a 30 minute lunch break. In fact there were times when she was unable to take a voluntary bathroom break for hours until a qualified staff member, or doctor could cover her for 5 minutes.
    She also worked many holidays including Christmas and Easter. Every other weekend was the norm not the exception. 16 hour shifts occurred and mandated to sleep at the hospital during Covid finally pushed her into retirement.
    Does my God or anyone’s God punish us for not worshiping at the correct time? I don’t know but I hope I get the chance to find out when it’s my time. I hope it’s what’s in my heart that carries the day not the time of day!

    Reply
    • Pierre Tristam says

      February 19, 2023 at 3:36 pm

      Ed, if any god were to punish your wife for not worshipping because she was putting in the work she was doing, that god belongs in Dante’s inferno.

      Reply
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents
  • grand living realty

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents

Recent Comments

  • Pierre Tristam on The Hung Jury Got It Right in the Monserrate Teron Trial
  • blerbfamilyfive on Why Will Furry Is Demolishing the Flagler Youth Orchestra
  • We believe the girl on The Hung Jury Got It Right in the Monserrate Teron Trial
  • DAVE on Flagler Pride Fest Is On Despite Hostile Climate, Drag Show Included, With a Few Cautionary Tucks
  • Blame Game on No, Flagler Beach Isn’t Asking for Money. It’s Asking for Cooperation from County and Cities.
  • Laurel on Behind the Divorce, a Bitter, Threat-Ridden Clash Between Waste Pro and Palm Coast Over Recycling Bins
  • Deborah Coffey on Wadsworth Elementary’s Paul Peacock Is Told He’s Done in Flagler Schools; New Principal To Be Named Later
  • Flatsflyer on Wadsworth Elementary’s Paul Peacock Is Told He’s Done in Flagler Schools; New Principal To Be Named Later
  • Greg on No, Flagler Beach Isn’t Asking for Money. It’s Asking for Cooperation from County and Cities.
  • Bailey’s Mom on Wadsworth Elementary’s Paul Peacock Is Told He’s Done in Flagler Schools; New Principal To Be Named Later
  • jake on Flagler Pride Fest Is On Despite Hostile Climate, Drag Show Included, With a Few Cautionary Tucks
  • Dennis Clark on No, Flagler Beach Isn’t Asking for Money. It’s Asking for Cooperation from County and Cities.
  • Bryan on “A Fitting Conclusion”: Family Speaks of Pilot Ray Miller’s Life of Adventure Before Crash
  • Ray W. on The Hung Jury Got It Right in the Monserrate Teron Trial
  • Ray W. on The Hung Jury Got It Right in the Monserrate Teron Trial
  • Dee on Wadsworth Elementary’s Paul Peacock Is Told He’s Done in Flagler Schools; New Principal To Be Named Later

Log in