US high court sets new rule for firms requiring work on religious holidays

US high court sets new rule for firms requiring work on religious holidays

Former US postal worker 
Gerald Groff had resigned from his job after not meeting requirements to work some Sundays
Former US postal worker Gerald Groff had resigned from his job after not meeting requirements to work some Sundays. Photo: KEVORK DJANSEZIAN / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/Getty Images via AFP/File
Source: AFP

The US Supreme Court set a tougher standard Thursday for companies to be able to claim "undue hardship" when requiring employees to work on religious holidays.

It ruled unanimously in the case of former postal worker Gerald Groff, whose requests to not work on Sundays due to his Christian beliefs were not accommodated by the US Postal Service (USPS).

Groff resigned after not meeting USPS requirements to work some Sundays and sued on the basis of his constitutional right to practice his faith.

Successive lower courts had rejected his complaint, saying USPS made efforts to accommodate him and had proved under the legal standard that it would suffer "undue hardship" to its business if it had to find other workers to fill his spot.

In their ruling, the high court justices did not focus on Groff's religious rights.

Read also

Better supervision needed after bank failures: US Fed chair

Instead, the issue was how "undue hardship" was defined -- how much difficulty a business would have to incur to justify forcing a worker to work on a religious holiday.

PAY ATTENTION: Share your outstanding story with our editors! Please reach us through info@corp.legit.ng!

A 46-year-old precedent case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, said "undue hardship" could be defined as anything more than minimal -- "de minimis" -- cost to the business.

"De minimis" then became a standard that religious rights advocates say essentially allowed businesses to reject any faith-related work request by an employee.

"Hardison's 'de minimis' test makes a mockery of the English language and no party truly defends it today," Groff's attorney Aaron Streett told the court in an April hearing.

Attorneys on both sides of the case agreed on that specific issue, and it was on that that the justices ruled Thursday.

The Hardison phrase "more than a de minimis cost" is insufficient for establishing "undue hardship," the court ruled.

Read also

Biden unveils election battle plan: 'Bidenomics'

"Under any definition, a hardship is more severe than a mere burden," it said.

In future cases, it said, if a company wants to prove it cannot meet an employee's religious scheduling needs, the employer must show that it "would result in substantial increased costs" to its business.

The ruling was not an absolute victory for Groff, however. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court for a rehearing under the new standard.

USPS will then be under pressure to prove that Groff's needs would add "substantial increased costs" to its business.

Source: AFP

Authors:
AFP avatar

AFP AFP text, photo, graphic, audio or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. AFP news material may not be stored in whole or in part in a computer or otherwise except for personal and non-commercial use. AFP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP news material or in transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages whatsoever. As a newswire service, AFP does not obtain releases from subjects, individuals, groups or entities contained in its photographs, videos, graphics or quoted in its texts. Further, no clearance is obtained from the owners of any trademarks or copyrighted materials whose marks and materials are included in AFP material. Therefore you will be solely responsible for obtaining any and all necessary releases from whatever individuals and/or entities necessary for any uses of AFP material.