2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,978
- 52,258
- 2,290
9-0 is a pretty good decision in the Supreme Court....and considering this decision upholds the Right of an American to refuse to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs is a good thing....
the unanimous ruling in Groff v USPS a “victory for religious liberty,” quoting Gerald Groff’s attorneys at First Liberty:
Alito’s conclusion makes it clear that the court has to rehear the dispute with the correct definition and standard in mind for the “undue hardship” test:
the unanimous ruling in Groff v USPS a “victory for religious liberty,” quoting Gerald Groff’s attorneys at First Liberty:
So Groff can take Sundays off now? Er … not quite. Today’s unanimous decision does not resolve the case, at least not for now. It corrects a lower-court interpretation of Title VII and an earlier precedent (Hardison) about the nature and definition of “undue hardship.” Alito’s ruling makes clear that an undue hardship would have to be substantial rather than “de minimis,” but it does not resolve whether Groff’s demand for accommodation meets the threshold by which the USPS can deny it.In a decision issued Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Pennsylvania postal worker who lost his job for refusing to take Sunday delivery shifts due to his observance of the Sabbath.
The court’s opinion, written by justice Samuel Alito, held that accommodating Gerald Groff’s religious observances did not provide an “undue burden” on postal operations, which expanded to Sundays for Amazon delivery.
“An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is ‘undue,’ and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered ‘undue,’” the court stated. “Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship.”
Alito’s conclusion makes it clear that the court has to rehear the dispute with the correct definition and standard in mind for the “undue hardship” test: