Worshippers applaud Supreme Court ruling on religious accommodation at work

Thursday’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling telling employers they need to show a “substantial” cost to accommodate the needs of employees who require a specific day off for religious observance drew plaudits from a number of religious communities, while one group blasted the decision as advancing the goals of “Christian Nationalism” under the guise of free exercise.

The ruling clarifies the high court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, in which the justices ruled that companies need only demonstrate a “de minimus,” or minimal, impact on operations to deny such accommodations. The ruling clears the way for millions of Americans to ask for time off on their day of worship, although it does not guarantee that each and every request will be granted.

The case involved Gerald Groff, a former Christian missionary and U.S. Postal Service carrier who quit his letter carrier job when required to deliver packages on Sunday. The USPS, which for more than a century shunned Sunday deliveries, resumed such service after signing a parcel delivery contract with Amazon.com.

“We are grateful that the Supreme Court has finally righted the wrong of Hardison and has reinstated the full right of religious accommodation in the workplace,” said Nathan Diamant, an attorney and executive director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

“Forcing American Jews [or Americans of any faith] to choose between their career and their conscience is fundamentally at odds with the principle of religious freedom that is the foundation of the United States and our Constitution,” Mr. Diamant said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, also applauded the decision.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an important victory for all people of faith, including American Muslims. For too long, American Muslims have been denied the right to perform daily prayers at work, wear hijab or kufi, or attend prayers on Fridays,” said Nihad Awad, the group’s national executive director. “Today marks a new era.”

Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said: “Today was a win for the little guy — all those who want to live and work in accordance with their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has made it so hardworking religious Americans no longer have to choose between their job and their faith.”

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said that, while they were “relieved” by the ruling, “Christian nationalist legal groups” are using the case “to privilege those who share their narrow religious beliefs — at the cost of everyone else’s religious freedom.”

The organization said it supported the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that said Abercrombie & Fitch stores could not refuse to hire a woman wearing a hijab, the Muslim head covering, and claimed this ruling is different. “Religious accommodations that don’t burden or harm others, like wearing a hijab or having a beard, or praying privately, are exactly what the law was designed to permit,” a statement said.

Eboo Patel, president of Interfaith America, however, said the ruling is not an expression of support for “White Christian Nationalism,” which he acknowledged as “a genuine threat.”

“I do not feel that the Groff case principally is about [strengthening] the hand of White Christian nationalists. And the best evidence for that is the number of religious minorities who would very much be threatened by white Christian nationalists who were supportive of the plaintiff in this case, because Muslims and Orthodox Jews and Sikhs and Jains and Hindus all need to make sure that the workplace pays attention to their particular religious identity,” Mr. Patel said.

Orlan Johnson, public affairs and religious liberty director for the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s North American division, said the ruling “is a huge statement for those who want to make sure that being accommodated for Sabbath purposes will be available to them, and also to businesses to have a better understanding on what exactly they can be looking to do.”

Mr. Johnson said the ruling should help the 1.2 million Adventists in the United States as they navigate the workplace.

And the man whose 1977 case was the foundation for Thursday’s ruling — former Trans World Airlines employee Larry Hardison — said he was pleased with the outcome, even if it came far too late to save his airline job which had a union contract and good benefits.

The ruling “takes a lot of weight off of the employee in my view, because it comes down to having the freedom to worship as I’m instructed to do, it’s not so much, in my case, a choice,” Mr. Hardison said in a telephone interview.

He said he felt compelled to keep the Bible Sabbath “if I am to please the God that created all of us and everything that we see.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the position of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.