Supreme Court may require employers to be more accommodating of religion

April 18, 2023, 3:45 PMGerald Groff of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resigned as a Postal Service letter carrier in 2019 after his boss would not excuse him from Sunday shifts to observe the Sabbath.The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to agree on the need to clarify a long-standing rule for when U.S. employers mustof employees but stopped short of suggesting a former U.S. Postal Service letter carrier deserves his job back.

The Postal Service has said Groff's absences created a significant burden on his coworkers and business operations -- especially during the peak holiday delivery season at his rural Pennsylvania post office -- harming morale and driving several staff to resign or relocate. The Supreme Court interpreted that standard 46 years ago in the case TWA v. Hardison to mean anything more than a "de minimis cost" on business operations. It's a very low bar that religious freedom advocates say discriminates against people of faith.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that changes in morale or staffing that might follow from a religious accommodation -- though difficult to quantify -- would also need to be considered. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was perhaps least sympathetic to Groff's arguments, suggesting the court should defer to the letter of the law and leave it to lower courts to continue interpreting the standard on their own.

Several of the Court's conservatives also flashed uneasiness with going too far in their decision. Kavanaugh appeared uncomfortable with a ruling that would broadly expand religious freedom at the expense of an employer's bottom line.

Time to go back to the days where most business' were closed on Sundays. Everybody deserves to have Sunday off. Greed and money.

Another perspective is someone takes a position that doesn't require them to work on their day of observance, the company then decides to implement, on what formerly had no bearing on his religious observation day, how is it fair to force someone to go against their principles?

So, accommodate EVERY religion or just the white devout fundamentalist Christian religion?

I don't want to work on Sundays in your place you lazy 🤡.

Do your job or find another, this is another example of the soft/woke world we live in.

Your religion does not belong in the public arena or if a private company does not except your religious beliefs they don’t have to. These so called religious people lack conviction in their own faith that they want to force it onto others.

You have the right to practice whatever religion you believe in.

United States Latest News, United States Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Iowa Supreme Court rejects Gov. Kim Reynolds’ move to dismiss public records suitThe court in a unanimous decision rejected Reynolds’ argument that her office wasn’t obligated to respond in a timely matter to record requests and that she could avoid the state’s open records law by simply ignoring the requests.
Source: chicagotribune - 🏆 8. / 91 Read more »

Klobuchar calls for Supreme Court ethics rules amid new questions over Clarence Thomas's income“It is time for ethics rules in the Supreme Court that are clear and enforceable,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Sunday, as new questions were raised about Justice Clarence Thomas. Court Ethics Marshall law How does this have anything to do with something newsworthy for MarketWatch? especially given the headline compared to: 'the omission may be an administrative error' This really funny. Politicians talking about ethics. They take bribes daily
Source: MarketWatch - 🏆 3. / 97 Read more »

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Is UnderfireThe panel discusses Justice Thomas underfire for accepting and not reporting luxury vacations. Of course he is, liberals hate a black man with a brain and integrity More BS being thrown by Democratic criminals.
Source: FOX26Houston - 🏆 448. / 53 Read more »

PolitiFact - Why doesn’t the Supreme Court have a formal code of ethics?ProPublica’s reporting revealing Justice Clarence Thomas accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from a Texas billionaire without disclosing them has renewed calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics. So far there isn’t one. His wife has been Taking monies from people like the Koch brothers for more the ten years Perfectly normal. And stuff. The worst part is that nothing will be done. Absolutely nothing. Unless and until Dems get an overpowering majority, Thomas can go on being corrupt as long as he likes
Source: PolitiFact - 🏆 17. / 71 Read more »

U.S. Supreme Court turns away suit by Texas inmate held 27 years in solitary confinementThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a Texas inmate convicted of robbery who argues that the 27 years he was forced by prison officials to spend in solitary confinement violated the constitutional bar against 'cruel and unusual.' Why? SCOTUS is broken. hrw ACLU KenRoth That is typical of the current SCOTUS. They wouldn't know what compassion was if it smacked them all on the jaw. The very idea of locking someone up in solitary confinement for 27 years is grotesquely inhumane, no matter what they might have done!
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

Amid Contradicting Orders, the Supreme Court Protects Abortion Pill Access—for NowA Friday afternoon order from the Supreme Court preserves the status quo on abortion pills till next week, giving the justices time to study the case. In Dobbs v. Jackson
Source: MsMagazine - 🏆 378. / 59 Read more »