By Eric Lendrum<\/a> June 30, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the same day as the Supreme Court\u2019s historic affirmative action decision, the high court also made a unanimous ruling on a major case involving freedom of religion in government service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As reported by Fox News<\/em><\/a>, the case involved U.S. Postal Service employee Gerald Groff, a Christian man in Pennsylvania who was ordered to continue working on Sundays, even though he considers Sunday to be the day of rest as per Biblical tradition. When he refused to work, he was ultimately forced to resign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its unanimous 9-0 ruling, the court determined this to be a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. In the process, the court overturned a precedent set in 1977, in the case Trans World Airlines v. Hardison<\/em>, which declared that employers could deny such religious accommodations if they determined that such a decision would result in a \u201cmore than a de minimis cost\u201d on the employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Groff\u2019s attorney Aaron Streett successfully argued for the elimination of the \u201cde minimis\u201d requirement, saying that the high court should instead consider approaching the question from the perspective of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to make religious accommodations for their employees, unless this would somehow lead to an \u201cundue hardship\u201d for the employer.<\/a>Ringing Ears? When Tinnitus Won’t Stop, Do This Immediately!<\/a><\/a><\/a>Urologist: Plenty of Men With An Enlarged Prostate Do Not Know About This Simple Solution<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe government believes undue hardship arises whenever there is lost efficiency, weekly payment of premium wages, or denial of a coworker\u2019s shift preference,\u201d said Streett during the oral arguments. \u201cThus, under the government\u2019s test, a diabetic employee could receive snack breaks under the ADA but not prayer breaks under Title VII, for that might cause lost efficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Streett\u2019s assertions that the prior \u201cde minimis\u201d standard had resulted in lower courts abusing the precedent to rule against religious objections, and that the new \u201cundue hardship\u201d standard would be fairer to those making First Amendment complaints against employers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo be sure, as the Solicitor General notes, some lower courts have understood that the protection for religious adherents is greater than \u2018more than \u2026 de minimus<\/em>\u2018 might suggest when read in isolation,\u201d said Justice Alito. \u201cBut a bevy of diverse religious organizations has told this Court that the de minimus<\/em> test has blessed the denial of even minor accommodation in many cases, making it harder for members of minority faiths to enter the job market.\u201dabout:blankReport Ad<\/a>about:blankReport Ad<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Postal Service issued a statement affirming that it would obey the court\u2019s ruling: \u201cWe agree with the Supreme Court\u2019s clarification, which accepts the arguments we made before the Court, and which is fully consistent with the standard we apply when seeking to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices of our employees.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" U.S. Supreme Court Hands Unanimous First Amendment Win to Christian Postal Worker By Eric Lendrum June 30, 2023 On the same day as the Supreme Court\u2019s historic affirmative action decision, the high court also made a unanimous ruling on a … Continue reading