Updates on Major Religious Liberty Cases: Groff at SCOTUS and Catholic Charities Bureau in Wisconsin

On Tuesday, April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a monumental religious liberty case known as Groff v. DeJoy. At the heart of this case are the questions: do American citizens have Constitutionally protected rights under the First Amendment to the “free exercise” of their faith in the workplace, and; are employers obligated to grant reasonable religious accommodations.

Christian mail carrier Gerald Groff requested the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for a religious accommodation that would excuse him from working on Sundays after they started doing Amazon package deliveries so that he could observe the Sabbath and live by his Christian faith. The fact that regular mail isn’t delivered by the USPS on Sundays was a major factor in Groff’s choosing to work there over a decade ago. USPS refused to grant him the accommodation and Groff chose to resign rather than be fired.

Groff is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes it will overturn its ominus 1977 precedent in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which enabled employers to deny religious accommodations. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restore Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides protection against religious discrimination. Their the amicus brief asserts in their summary:

This Court should overrule the interpretation in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison that Title VII does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would impose more than a de minimis burden on the employer. Hardison’s de minimis standard—found nowhere in the Title VII’s text or legislative history—has led to absurd results, allowing employers to discriminate against religious employees with impunity, thereby forcing workers to choose between their religious beliefs and their jobs.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices spent much of the hearing debating the exact meanings of “undue hardship” and “de minimis.”

Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, recommended that the justices “construe undue hardship according to its plain text to mean significant difficulty or expense,” which would be consistent with the language in the accommodation standard of the “Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Hardison adequately protects religious exercise, to which Justice Samuel Alito responded, “I’m really struck by that because we have amicus briefs here by many representatives of many minority religions, Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, and they all say that is just not true, and that Hardison has violated their right to religious liberty.”

Chief Justice John Roberts spoke about changes in religious liberty case law since the Hardison ruling, arguing that religious protections had been expanded.

Thankfully, it appears that the conservative justices are poised to rule in favor of Groff and the religious liberty of every employee. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule over this case by the summer.

A version of this article was originally published by Wisconsin Family Action.