Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling on Religious Freedom Has Broad Impacts

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that workers will have less difficulty seeking religious accommodations, though broader implications for employers and employees are yet to be determined.

Evangelical Christian Gerald Groff was the subject of the lawsuit that led to Thursday's opinion from the high court. A former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, Groff took a mail delivery job in 2012 but refused to work on the Sunday Sabbath.

Groff, of Pennsylvania, sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that the USPS could have accommodated his Sabbath practice "without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS's] business." The case, which will be further litigated by lower courts, clarifies a 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison that stated that accommodations were not required if they imposed more than a minimal, or "de minimis" burden to employers.

"We're over the moon. This is a landmark win for religious liberty," Randal Wenger of the Independence Law Center, who acted as one of Groff's attorneys in the suit, told Newsweek following the decision. "And religious liberty is critical—we all benefit from strong religious liberty protections, even if we're not religious because our rights flow together.

"If we're not protecting our ability to be able to follow our conscience, it's very hard to protect the other rights that are so important for a pluralistic society, like freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association. So, this is good for all of us. Every American should be happy today."

Wenger called the previous Hardison standard "unworkable" and said that the Supreme Court is "really restoring the balance" that Congress intended in the first place when they passed the protections for religious employees.

He added that the "crazy" and "ridiculous" standard decided in Hardison didn't solve any employer-employee situations.

"Going forward it is just putting the balance in place...where it's going to draw the employer and the employee together to come up with reasonable solutions, solutions that work," Wenger said. "In the past, it was the 'employer always wins' and this isn't now an 'employee always wins.'"

Wenger said he spoke with Groff following the decision, describing him as "thrilled, grateful to God" and that he "could not be happier."

A USPS spokesperson told Newsweek that they agree with the Supreme Court's decision, "which is fully consistent with the standard we apply when seeking to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs, observances and practices of our employees."

"For those reasons, and because we believe the lower court will conclude that providing the requested accommodation here would impose a substantial burden on the Postal Service, we are confident that the Postal Service will again prevail when the case is remanded," the spokesperson added.

Why the lawsuit occurred

When Groff was hired by USPS in 2012, his position did not generally involve Sunday work.

That changed, however, after USPS agreed to begin facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon. To avoid Sunday-based work requirements even on a rotating basis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station that did not make Sunday deliveries.

Once Amazon deliveries began at that station and he remained unwilling to work Sundays, USPS began redistributing Groff's Sunday deliveries to other USPS staff, leading to "progressive discipline" for his failing to work on that day of the week. He eventually resigned.

Implications of the new standard

Caroline Mala Corbin, a law professor at the University of Miami, told Newsweek she was not surprised by the unanimous decision due to the existing standard needing to be revisited.

The law stated that the employer must accommodate the religious requirements of an employee unless it imposed an "undue hardship"—mentioned 73 times in the opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

The issue, Corbin said, was how to interpret "undue hardship." Previously, it was a simple standard to meet, therefore making it easy for employers to refuse to provide religious accommodations.

"What the Supreme Court essentially did was make that standard more rigorous, so it is not as easy for an employer to reject a request for religious accommodation," she said. "So, this helps all religious employees. It helps those employees who belong to minority religions who are seeking some kind of accommodation at work. It will also help conservative Christian employees who are seeking some kind of religious accommodation."

"How much it will change the law, we'll have to see," Corbin said.

Alito wrote: "We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."

Corbin said the "de minimis" standard was a really low bar, and now much more is being required. An employer might have to spend money accommodating the employee, for example, which was not the case beforehand.

The exact contours of the law remain unclear due to the standard remaining up in the air based on what lower courts decide.

Another line in the opinion that caught her eye relates to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which reads: "Accordingly, today's clarification may prompt little, if any, change in the agency's guidance explaining why no undue hardship is imposed by temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, or administrative costs."

A spokesperson for the EEOC told Newsweek via email that the Supreme Court's decision "acknowledges the EEOC's long history of protecting applicants and employees who need religious accommodations that do not impose an undue hardship on the conduct of an employer's business."

"The Supreme Court noted that the EEOC's guidance on religious accommodations remains valuable today," the spokesperson said. "Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that 'a good deal of the EEOC's guidance in this area is sensible and will, in all likelihood, be unaffected by our clarifying decision today.'

"Consistent with its longstanding approach, the EEOC will continue to evaluate undue hardship defenses on a case-by-case basis and in doing so will follow the Supreme Court's decision."

Update 6/30/23, 9:36 a.m. ET: This story was updated with comment from the USPS.