The Supreme Court sought to draw lines Tuesday for how far an employer needs to go to accommodate the religious practices of a worker whose faith forbids work on the Sabbath.
Most justices seemed to see problems with the standard set by a 1970s-era precedent that a company could ignore any requests that required it to incur more than “de minimis” costs. Justices said companies needed to show that it was more than a “trifle.”
Figuring out where to draw the line proved tricky.
“It’s going to depend on the size of the employer, the nature of the request, what reasonable options are available to the employer,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said.
That means small businesses could bear different burdens than larger ones.
“It’s all contextual,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The case before the high court involves Gerald Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service employee who was pressured to work on Sundays after the Postal Service took a delivery contract with Amazon. Mr. Groff asked not to be scheduled on Sundays for religious reasons, but the Postal Service said it couldn’t always find substitutes.
Mr. Groff was punished for missing work and eventually left the job and sued.
Lower courts said the Postal Service was protected under a 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which held that employers can deny religious requests when a business experiences an “undue hardship” from accommodating the employee.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said employees at the small Pennsylvania location where Mr. Groff worked would have to bear too much burden to accommodate him.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the Postal Service in Tuesday’s argument, urged the justices to uphold the court’s 1977 precedent.
She said employers and courts have been operating under its terms for years and have figured out how to treat Sabbath requests.
“Courts are regularly granting accommodations,” she told the court.
She said Mr. Groff’s request was rightly denied because the small post office where he worked had difficulty accommodating him and other employees quit because of the schedule.
“This was not some minor inconvenience to the Postal Service,” Ms. Prelogar said.
Mr. Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, said a burden on other employees can’t be the sole reason for denying Mr. Groff his religious accommodation.
“Employees should not be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” Mr. Streett said.
Most of the justices appeared ready to clarify — if possible — what level of burden an employer can place on an employee’s religious practice to avoid running afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh questioned what a “substantial cost” would be for an employer.
“I’m not sure we can give you a full manual about how it is going to play out,” he said.
He also wondered about prioritizing some religions over others that aren’t so strict about Sabbath observance.
Other justices pondered how to pit religious claims against demands of employees who want to watch their children play sports.
Mr. Groff, who attended the arguments Tuesday, said win or lose, he is glad to have his case heard.
“No employee should have to choose between his faith and his career like I did,” he said. “I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had. Only God knows the final outcome of my case. I still trust him even if my decision to honor the Lord’s Day costs me my career. I hope this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to maintain their convictions without living in fear of losing their jobs because of what they believe.”
There was also the issue of how a ruling would affect collective bargaining agreements that govern time-off requests.
Airlines for America, an advocacy trade group, argued in a brief that the industry bases airport workers’ shifts on a seniority system.
The group said a ruling overturning Hardison could lead to delays, pilots flying slower, increased fuel costs and poor customer service from flight attendants.
“[Seniority systems] are integral to the ability of airlines to maintain 24/7 operations 365 days a year, including ensuring that flights take off and land on time as much as possible,” the group argued in its brief.
Amory McAndrew, an employment lawyer at Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, said restaurants, hotels and customer service companies also operate on 24/7 schedules.
“Just about every job — there is a level of seniority impacting your career,” she said. “It is more direct when it comes down to scheduling.
“There is a possibility that these companies are going to lose workers to other employers.”
Like Airlines for America, the American Postal Workers Union and the AFL-CIO filed a brief urging the justices to rule against Mr. Groff. The brief argued that his case is a claim for “preferential entitlement.”
The brief said other mail workers have earned time to spend with their families and days of rest, as well.
“They are citizens equally entitled to a day of rest, and equally protected against government-mandated sacrifice to facilitate others’ religious exercise,” the union said.
A ruling from the justices is expected by the end of June. The case is Groff v. DeJoy..
• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.