Amy Coney Barrett's Surprising Remarks in Supreme Court Religion Case

• Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked questions during oral arguments in a religious rights case on Tuesday.
• The case involves a postal carrier who says he can't work Sundays because of his religious beliefs.
• Barrett suggested that providing the requested religious accommodation could have a negative effect on other employees' morale

Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett pursued a line of questioning during oral arguments in a religious rights case on Tuesday that may surprise some of her supporters and critics.

The Supreme Court heard the case of a former mail carrier and evangelical Christian, Gerald Groff, who is arguing that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) failed to provide him with adequate religious accommodation because his beliefs prevent him from working Sundays.

Barrett, a Roman Catholic and member of the Court's conservative wing, is well-known for her deeply held religious beliefs, which have sometimes proven controversial and even led to calls for her to recuse herself from a case involving LGBTQ+ rights.

However, during questions to Groff's attorney, Aaron Streett, on Tuesday, Barrett appeared to agree with Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh that providing the religious accommodation Groff was seeking could be potentially damaging to other employees' morale and have a negative effect on the operation of a company making that accommodation.

"I mean, you might have many religious people in a workplace seeking the same accommodation for Sundays off or - or other kinds of accommodations," Barrett said on Tuesday, according to a transcript of oral arguments released by the Court.

"And I guess it seems to me, as Justice Kavanaugh said, morale can be very important. It kind of seems to me that you're defining conduct of the business as the bottom line, like you want a dollar amount on it," she went on.

"So, if you lose efficiency and you want to measure, like, well, we're not able to deliver as many Amazon packages, so it's costing us some of our contract. We're not as able to sell as many groceries, or we have to close early on Sundays because we can't cover it and we're losing the sales in that [...] part of the shift," the conservative justice said.

Barrett also pointed to "things that might be very difficult to prove and put a
dollar amount on, employees aren't as productive because they're grumbling, they're not willing to kind of go the extra mile, put their best foot forward, those might be very difficult things to put a dollar amount on or the dollar amount might be small."

"But why wouldn't they be things that affected the conduct of the business?" she asked.

Barrett then had a back and forth with Streett about the potential effects on the morale and operation of a company making the kind of religious accommodation Groff is seeking.

The justice appeared to question whether allowing a person not to work on Sundays because of their religious beliefs would place an unfair burden on their employer and their coworkers.

"If you're in the rural grocery store and the two other employees have to pick up all
the shifts, maybe that's not reasonable, or does it always have to be measured, in your view, under that substantial or difficulty test?" she asked.

Streett responded that employers had "flexibility to select an accommodation that's
not the religious employee's preferred accommodation, and as part of making that
reasonable accommodation, the employer can take into account the effect on the coworkers or take into account the effect on the business."

"And, of course, that's what we had here," Street went on. "This is not a get-out-of-work-free card for Mr. Groff. He volunteered to work on Saturdays. He volunteered to work on non-Sunday holidays. And it simply shifted around the shifts that individuals were working."

Groff was a rural carrier associate in Pennsylvania and didn't work Sundays, but in 2013, USPS contracted to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays. USPS made some efforts to accommodate Groff, such as changing around shifts or allowing him to come to work after religious services.

He eventually left in 2019 and filed suit against USPS under Title VII, which prevents discrimination against employees based on their religion.

A district judge ruled against Groff and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in a 2-1 vote.

Under Title VII, an employer must show that they made a good faith effort to provide reasonable accommodation for the employee or they must show that providing that accommodation would place an "undue hardship" on the employer.

Newsweek has reached out to Gerald Groff's attorney via email for comment.