Supreme Court to hear case of evangelical postal worker suing because he wasn't spared Sunday shifts

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-christian-postal-workers-religious-claim-rcna65544

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an evangelical Christian mail carrier's employment discrimination claim in a case that could force employers to do more to accommodate the religious practices of their workers.

The justices will hear an appeal brought by Gerald Groff, who says the U.S. Postal Service could have granted his request that he be spared Sunday shifts based on his religious belief that it is a day of worship and rest.

Groff has asked the court to make it easier for employees to bring religious claims under Title VII of the Civil Right Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination of various forms, including based on religion.

I'm thinking this will be anywhere from 5-4 (with any one of the conservative justices joining the liberal wing) to 7-2 (with Kagan joining the conservative wing, possibly in exchange for getting the opinion) in favor of the postal worker.

[dead0man]

what if all the Postal carriers in an area share the same religion and the same high levels of zeal for it?  No mail on whatever holy days the mail men's religion claim are holy?  What if it's April 15th or Dec 23rd?

[Torie]

what if all the Postal carriers in an area share the same religion and the same high levels of zeal for it?  No mail on whatever holy days the mail men's religion claim are holy?  What if it's April 15th or Dec 23rd?

what if all the Postal carriers in an area share the same religion and the same high levels of zeal for it?  No mail on whatever holy days the mail men's religion claim are holy?  What if it's April 15th or Dec 23rd?

1. It is a stringer fill in job for working holidays and weekends. The Postal service does Sundays to accommodate Amazon these days.

2. I am not sure why it would be such a hardship for the Postal Service to hire more people, and therefore he gets less work as he only works on holidays (presumably not Xmas and Waster) and Saturdays. Is it a hardship for the Postal Service to pay more to get others to work Sundays?

3. Is it a hardship for the Postal Service to grandfather stringers like him who were hired with the understanding that they did not have to work Sundays, or nobody did, until Amazon, while allowing the postal service to eschew new hires who refuse to work on the some of the stringer days?

I thought the case was a slam dunk until I read that it was a stringer job (so like 45% of the time, he can't work when he is needed, which makes the facts far less compelling, but on the other hand it does seem the postal service was pretty hardass to not grandfather him in). The degree of accommodation should be higher for employees like him, where the terms of employment changed, as opposed to new hires (e.g. an irreligious type who took the job now, but then found Christ having known when he took the job, that Sunday work was expected), but how high?

The employee will probably win, but it might be a quite narrow fact specific decision. SCOTUS probably took the case because it was the Postal Service, so it's the government, and potentially it affects a lot of people.

[Skill and Chance]

Suspect this could be a non-standard lineup given the competing right wing religious freedom and left wing workers' rights angles.  It has the feeling of a case where Gorsuch and Sotomayor agree. 

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom.  Even if many evangelicals do not hold to strict Sabbatarianism, someone choosing to do so is still a clear case of the free exercise of their religion.

[politicallefty]

This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom.  Even if many evangelicals do not hold to strict Sabbatarianism, someone choosing to do so is still a clear case of the free exercise of their religion.

This actually has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause. It's an interpretation of statutory law with respect to the EEOC and amendments made to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's calling for the overturning of TWA v. Hardison (1977), when the conservative majority delivered a 7-2 majority opinion against the employee. The crux of the holding was this:

To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give respondent Saturdays off would be an undue hardship, for, like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion. Absent clear statutory language or legislative history to the contrary, the statute, the paramount concern of which is to eliminate discrimination in employment, cannot be construed to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath.

In dissent in that case were Justices Brennan and Marshall, much in line with their later dissent in Employment Division v. Smith. They were two of the staunchest defenders of religious liberties during their time on the Court. During the Warren Court, Burger Court, and the early years of the Rehnquist Court, it was the liberals that were supportive of religious liberty while the conservatives supported most religion-neutral government action.

[DaleCooper]

I hate people who think they deserve special treatment, but this is a pretty obvious victory for the fake Christian postal worker.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I would rule in favor of the postal worker.  A reasonable accommodation could be made to allow the worker to not have to work on a day that holds special religious significance.

[Tintrlvr]

what if all the Postal carriers in an area share the same religion and the same high levels of zeal for it?  No mail on whatever holy days the mail men's religion claim are holy?  What if it's April 15th or Dec 23rd?

what if all the Postal carriers in an area share the same religion and the same high levels of zeal for it?  No mail on whatever holy days the mail men's religion claim are holy?  What if it's April 15th or Dec 23rd?

1. It is a stringer fill in job for working holidays and weekends. The Postal service does Sundays to accommodate Amazon these days.

2. I am not sure why it would be such a hardship for the Postal Service to hire more people, and therefore he gets less work as he only works on holidays (presumably not Xmas and Waster) and Saturdays. Is it a hardship for the Postal Service to pay more to get others to work Sundays?

3. Is it a hardship for the Postal Service to grandfather stringers like him who were hired with the understanding that they did not have to work Sundays, or nobody did, until Amazon, while allowing the postal service to eschew new hires who refuse to work on the some of the stringer days?

I thought the case was a slam dunk until I read that it was a stringer job (so like 45% of the time, he can't work when he is needed, which makes the facts far less compelling, but on the other hand it does seem the postal service was pretty hardass to not grandfather him in). The degree of accommodation should be higher for employees like him, where the terms of employment changed, as opposed to new hires (e.g. an irreligious type who took the job now, but then found Christ having known when he took the job, that Sunday work was expected), but how high?

The employee will probably win, but it might be a quite narrow fact specific decision. SCOTUS probably took the case because it was the Postal Service, so it's the government, and potentially it affects a lot of people.

The bold is a key fact. I thought this was a 9-0 case without it. With it, I see why there's a good argument that this request would be hard to accommodate, and there does have to be some balancing. I'm surprised that the Court took it, even given it involves the Postal Service, since it's really more of a fact-based case, and there doesn't seem to be much opportunity to announce a new legal standard.

[Del Tachi]

My preferred solution would just be to bring back the ban on Sunday shopping. 

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

One of those cases that really should be 9-0 but won't be.

The postal worker should win.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom.  Even if many evangelicals do not hold to strict Sabbatarianism, someone choosing to do so is still a clear case of the free exercise of their religion.

This actually has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause. It's an interpretation of statutory law with respect to the EEOC and amendments made to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's calling for the overturning of TWA v. Hardison (1977), when the conservative majority delivered a 7-2 majority opinion against the employee. The crux of the holding was this:

To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give respondent Saturdays off would be an undue hardship, for, like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion. Absent clear statutory language or legislative history to the contrary, the statute, the paramount concern of which is to eliminate discrimination in employment, cannot be construed to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath.

In dissent in that case were Justices Brennan and Marshall, much in line with their later dissent in Employment Division v. Smith. They were two of the staunchest defenders of religious liberties during their time on the Court. During the Warren Court, Burger Court, and the early years of the Rehnquist Court, it was the liberals that were supportive of religious liberty while the conservatives supported most religion-neutral government action.

I'm not sure a finding in favor of the plaintiff would require overturning TWA v. Hardison.  They could keep to the same test but find differently if they say that the Post Office could have easily accommodated the employee more than was the case for the TWA.

[politicallefty]

This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom.  Even if many evangelicals do not hold to strict Sabbatarianism, someone choosing to do so is still a clear case of the free exercise of their religion.

This actually has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause. It's an interpretation of statutory law with respect to the EEOC and amendments made to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's calling for the overturning of TWA v. Hardison (1977), when the conservative majority delivered a 7-2 majority opinion against the employee. The crux of the holding was this:

To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give respondent Saturdays off would be an undue hardship, for, like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion. Absent clear statutory language or legislative history to the contrary, the statute, the paramount concern of which is to eliminate discrimination in employment, cannot be construed to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath.

In dissent in that case were Justices Brennan and Marshall, much in line with their later dissent in Employment Division v. Smith. They were two of the staunchest defenders of religious liberties during their time on the Court. During the Warren Court, Burger Court, and the early years of the Rehnquist Court, it was the liberals that were supportive of religious liberty while the conservatives supported most religion-neutral government action.

I'm not sure a finding in favor of the plaintiff would require overturning TWA v. Hardison.  They could keep to the same test but find differently if they say that the Post Office could have easily accommodated the employee more than was the case for the TWA.

Possibly, but I think that's unlikely given the questions presented in this case:

1. Whether this Court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing Title VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

2. Whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's co-workers rather than the business itself.

They may not explicitly overrule that case, but they'll gut it. Personally, I think the facts in this case are very weak for the plaintiff, but that rarely stops this Court.

[NewYorkExpress]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

Interesting breakdown. Very very broadly it makes sense for a general "extent of state/institutional power" case, including KBJ being a little more small-l libertarian than Sotomayor and Kagan, but for that kind of case Roberts and Gorsuch are reversed from where I'd expect them to be. The article you link doesn't mention those two; are you guessing at their positions or is there more on this elsewhere?

[NewYorkExpress]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

Interesting breakdown. Very very broadly it makes sense for a general "extent of state/institutional power" case, including KBJ being a little more small-l libertarian than Sotomayor and Kagan, but for that kind of case Roberts and Gorsuch are reversed from where I'd expect them to be. The article you link doesn't mention those two; are you guessing at their positions or is there more on this elsewhere?

Completely guessing, quite honestly, but it does seem to track with the other justices (Gorsuch has been largely aligned with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett more than any other duo, and Roberts has a very pro-religion record since joining the court).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

Interesting breakdown. Very very broadly it makes sense for a general "extent of state/institutional power" case, including KBJ being a little more small-l libertarian than Sotomayor and Kagan, but for that kind of case Roberts and Gorsuch are reversed from where I'd expect them to be. The article you link doesn't mention those two; are you guessing at their positions or is there more on this elsewhere?

Completely guessing, quite honestly, but it does seem to track with the other justices (Gorsuch has been largely aligned with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett more than any other duo, and Roberts has a very pro-religion record since joining the court).

That's true, but again, since this is seeming like they're treating it more as a state/agency/institutional power case than as a religion case, you'd expect to see Gorsuch and Roberts on reversed sides. The math is the same either way, though, especially since you're already at five with Kav, ACB, and the three liberals, even if KBJ writes a separate concurrence.

[Sestak]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

Interesting breakdown. Very very broadly it makes sense for a general "extent of state/institutional power" case, including KBJ being a little more small-l libertarian than Sotomayor and Kagan, but for that kind of case Roberts and Gorsuch are reversed from where I'd expect them to be. The article you link doesn't mention those two; are you guessing at their positions or is there more on this elsewhere?

Completely guessing, quite honestly, but it does seem to track with the other justices (Gorsuch has been largely aligned with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett more than any other duo, and Roberts has a very pro-religion record since joining the court).

This seems backwards. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts have clearly formed a "middle bloc" on a large number of high profile decisions; in the previous term Gorsuch's agreement rate with any of the three was quite a bit lower (his highest rate was with Alito).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Judging from oral arguments today,Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan are favor of the USPS, which would make the majority. Brown Jackson seems like she's going to concur in judgement with this majority, but write her own opinion, and Roberts, Alito and Thomas appear to be the minority opinion.

Interesting breakdown. Very very broadly it makes sense for a general "extent of state/institutional power" case, including KBJ being a little more small-l libertarian than Sotomayor and Kagan, but for that kind of case Roberts and Gorsuch are reversed from where I'd expect them to be. The article you link doesn't mention those two; are you guessing at their positions or is there more on this elsewhere?

Completely guessing, quite honestly, but it does seem to track with the other justices (Gorsuch has been largely aligned with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett more than any other duo, and Roberts has a very pro-religion record since joining the court).

This seems backwards. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts have clearly formed a "middle bloc" on a large number of high profile decisions; in the previous term Gorsuch's agreement rate with any of the three was quite a bit lower (his highest rate was with Alito).

This perception that Gorsuch is a moderate needs to go away. It's true that there have been several high-profile cases where he's broken from right-wing orthodoxy but there are very few areas of the law within which his approach is at all moderate. He might be even less concerned with the practical consequences of his opinions than Thomas is.

[politicallefty]

This perception that Gorsuch is a moderate needs to go away. It's true that there have been several high-profile cases where he's broken from right-wing orthodoxy but there are very few areas of the law within which his approach is at all moderate. He might be even less concerned with the practical consequences of his opinions than Thomas is.

I think it's the same thing many people do when it comes to politics. They conflate centrism with moderation. They are not the same at all. A centrist generally tries to take a middle-of-the-road approach as often as possible. I think being a moderate can be a lot more (imagine someone that's pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-union, anti-marijuana, or any other permutation you can think up). That said, even on that measure, Gorsuch is most certainly not a moderate. Idiosyncrasies should not be confused with moderation or centrism. Justice Kennedy was probably the closest thing to a moderate, but he was certainly not centrist (except perhaps a couple select issues, such as religion). Otherwise, Kennedy's decisions were sweeping and left little room for new interpretations. Obviously, Obergefell was one of the biggest, but remember that he also authored Citizens United and was part of the dissent that would have struck down the ACA in its entirety.

[jamestroll]

So what do we do if all police officers and emergency services in general say they are religious and do not work?

What if all doctors did ?

Do we essentially shut down society on Sundays?

screw that postal worker.

Interestingly, prior to covid, I noticed that conservatives tended to look down on people who worked nights and weekends and generally opposed it. During covid, that attitude shifted to the left.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the postal worker: https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-backs-christian-wanted-141521466.html

[Blue3]

The Christian mail carrier case just continues this weird absolutist trend on reorienting all of society/economy around a person’s religious liberty in the most extreme way.
Maybe we should all just join a religion that doesn’t believe in student loans and demands single-payer healthcare, and the Supreme Court will see it’s done for us?

[Vosem]

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the postal worker: https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-backs-christian-wanted-141521466.html

The court moved the standard an inch in his direction, but essentially left the law intact, and remanded the case back to a lower court for new proceedings consistent with their decision. Alito managed to build a 9-0 majority here but Groff got way less than he wanted.

(Groff wanted explicit protection: instead, the post office will have to show that the harm caused by letting employees take Sundays off for religious reasons is "undue" rather than "more than de minimis".) Alito's opinion notes:

[T]oday's clarification may prompt little, if any, change in the [EEOC's] guidance explaining why no undue hardship is imposed by temporary costs, voluntary shift swapping, occasional shift swapping, or administrative costs. But it would not be prudent to ratify in toto a body of EEOC interpretation that has not had the benefit of the clarification we adopt today...

That virtually implies Groff should lose on retrial, though it does give him another bite at the apple.

The Christian mail carrier case just continues this weird absolutist trend on reorienting all of society/economy around a person’s religious liberty in the most extreme way.
Maybe we should all just join a religion that doesn’t believe in student loans and demands single-payer healthcare, and the Supreme Court will see it’s done for us?

There are religions like this! Amish people do not attend college and communally pay for healthcare costs. They've been given wide latitude by courts to continue their practices (for example, by not paying into Social Security). You are free to join them whenever you want; for that matter you are free to at least try to create new communities that do not have these characteristics. There is precedent saying that religious reasons may qualify you not to pay into Social Security (though the standard to meet there is harsh); if you'd like to apply, you can go fill out Form 4029. The link on the IRS's website to the form is broken, unfortunately, but that page basically explains what the current law is.

[MasterJedi]

The Christian mail carrier case just continues this weird absolutist trend on reorienting all of society/economy around a person’s religious liberty in the most extreme way.
Maybe we should all just join a religion that doesn’t believe in student loans and demands single-payer healthcare, and the Supreme Court will see it’s done for us?

We can all become Jews to not have to pay any interest on anything?