Constitutional delivery

NICK EICHER, HOST: Up next … a legal battle over working on the Sabbath.

A divided federal appeals court panel in Philadelphia recently upheld the sanctioning of a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. He got in trouble with the post office for refusing to work Sundays.

Gerald Groff worked at a post office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania … where he was denied a religious exemption.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: He eventually resigned from his job after being written up.

Joining us now to fill us in on this case is Steve West. He’s an attorney and writes about religious liberty issues for WORLD.

Steve, good morning!

STEVE WEST, GUEST: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: So take us back to the beginning. Did this man suddenly decide he couldn’t work Sundays? Or was Sunday work not originally part of his job?

WEST: Mr. Groff was always observant of a Sunday sabbath, and generally he was able to swap shifts and get other workers to take Sunday for him, but it was a very small office and that eventually became difficult to do–particularly after the office’s workload increased as the Postal Service began Sunday delivery of packages for Amazon.

REICHARD: Okay, so he eventually got written up for not working Sundays. After that he resigned and later took legal action. What’s his legal argument?

WEST: It’s really a First Amendment argument that takes shape under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That federal law requires employers–including the federal government–to make reasonable accommodations for employees based on their religious views–unless it causes an undue hardship on the employer. There’s the problem too: It’s not been difficult for employers to demonstrate hardship. Courts have said all they have to do is show a de minimis burden–a light burden–and they win.

REICHARD: Let’s talk about what the law requires of an employer as far as providing religious accomodations. And specifically what’s the U.S. Postal Service required to do?

WEST: Well, Groff’s attorneys did persuade the court of one legal point. The court found that full accomodation was required. Partial measures would not do. So, giving him time off for worship or another day for his sabbath would not do. Yet, nevertheless, the majority found that the Postal Service’s arguments that giving Groff Sunday off would burden co-workers and hurt morale were enough of a burden to deny accommodation.

REICHARD: One judge dissented. What did he say?

WEST: He said he would have sent the case back to the district court for more facts. He said the focus on co-workers was irrelevant, that it was hardship on the business that the court needed to consider, not hardship on other employees.

REICHARD: Okay, so what is Groff’s legal recourse at this point?

WEST: Groff’s attorneys could seek a rehearing of the appeal by a full complement of the circuit court’s judges or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. And there is some hope the court could revisit the undue hardship standard. In February 20-20, the US Supreme Court declined to review lower court rulings upholding retailer Walgreens’ right to fire employee Darrell Patterson, a Seventh-day Adventist, over a Saturday Sabbath accommodation. In an accompanying opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said the Supreme Court should reconsider the de minimis standard. Another case, another day.

REICHARD: Steve West writes about religious liberties for WORLD Digital. You can read his work at W-N-G dot O-R-G. You can also subscribe to his free weekly newsletter on First Amendment issues, called Liberties. Steve, always good to have you on. Thank you!

WEST: You're welcome.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.