{"id":4157,"date":"2024-02-21T13:16:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-21T18:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/?p=4157"},"modified":"2024-09-27T18:57:20","modified_gmt":"2024-09-27T18:57:20","slug":"religious-devotion-groff-v-dejoys-opportunity-for-fairness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/religious-devotion-groff-v-dejoys-opportunity-for-fairness\/","title":{"rendered":"Religious Devotion & Groff v. Dejoy\u2019s Opportunity for Fairness"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Benjamin T. Craig<\/a>, Vol. 22 Staff Member<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer\u2026 to discriminate against any individual\u2026because of his\u2026 religion\u2026.<\/a>\u201d This protection, outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act<\/a>, enshrines our nation\u2019s commitment to protect the religious devotee\u2019s right to free exercise without fear of retaliation by an employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, this right was not absolute as the Act ensured employers could reject accommodations resulting in an \u201cundue hardship<\/a>\u201d for the employer. However, one line in the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/em><\/a> sent the viability of Title VII\u2019s protections into a tailspin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After decades of misinterpretation, the Supreme Court recently clarified<\/a> the extent of religious observance protections in the workplace, presenting a much-needed win for the religious devotee while simultaneously presenting religious persons an opportunity to embrace a \u201cfairness for all<\/a>\u201d perspective.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hardison\u2019s One Hit Blunder<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps unwittingly, the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison<\/em><\/a> (TWA<\/em>) severely inhibited Title VII\u2019s capacity to protect religious persons from employment discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In TWA<\/em>, Hardison, a recent convert to the \u201cWorldwide Church of God,\u201d was discharged by TWA for insubordination after refusing to work on Saturdays. Hardison sued TWA for religious discrimination under Title VII, arguing that TWA\u2019s failure to respect his Sabbath day observance constituted a violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e\u20132<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court rejected Hardison\u2019s claim, holding that \u201cTo require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost<\/a> in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.\u201d Essentially, the Court stamped its approval on a standard that rejects religious accommodations except in instances in which such accommodations bore absolutely no cost to the employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though the Court may have believed this test struck the ideal balance between undue favoritism in Sabbath observance of religious employees (potentially violating the Establishment Clause<\/a>) and acknowledging a right to religious observance, its inclusion sparked \u201cwidespread confusion<\/a>\u201d as to when a religious accommodation would be obligatory, with many companies defaulting to simply not granting any accommodation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hardison<\/em>, in essence, deprived protection for the religious employee at a bearable cost of an employer, taking \u201cthe bill from the employers and pass[ing] it to employees<\/a>.\u201d Since Hardison<\/em>, courts have \u201crepeatedly<\/a>\u201d found in favor of large companies seeking to avoid Title VII liability, often at the expense of a variety of religious minorities<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Groff v. Dejoy\u2019s Return to \u201cHardship\u201d<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps most surprising in a political and ideological landscape as polarized as the one we find ourselves in today, both parties argued in Groff v. Dejoy<\/em><\/a> that Hardison<\/em>\u2019s \u201cde minimis<\/em>\u201d (essentially any cost greater than zero) standard was a misguided, clear \u201cmistake<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Groff<\/em>, a United States Postal Worker, Gerald Groff, resigned after being \u201cprogressive[ly] disciplined\u201d for refusing to work Sunday shifts delivering Amazon packages. Groff filed suit, like Hardison, under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e\u20132<\/a>. The District Court ruled in favor of the Postal Service holding that Groff could not show his request bore no cost to the USPS, and the Third Circuit affirmed, citing Hardison<\/em>\u2019s \u201cde minimis<\/em>\u201d standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unanimously, the Supreme Court reversed<\/a> the lower courts and offered much-needed clarification for the extent of the \u201cundue hardship\u201d test. Though the Court did not outright overrule Hardison<\/em>, the Court did explicitly reject<\/a> the \u201cde minimis\u201d test, holding that an undue hardship is \u201ca burden\u2026 substantial in the overall context of an employer\u2019s business.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than overrule Hardison<\/em> in favor of a broader reading of Title VII in favor of religious petitioners, as some faiths called for in their amicus briefs<\/a>, the Court strengthened<\/a> religious accommodation protections by simply reemphasizing the literal meaning of the phrase \u201cundue hardships<\/em>\u201d and entrusted the lower courts to apply this new guidance to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opportunities for Abuse or Unsustainability in the Road Ahead<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though undoubtedly a step forward for religious celebrants of the First Amendment, Groff<\/em>\u2019s holding was not without critics, and for good reason. For some, Groff<\/em> \u201cundermined<\/a>\u201d an employer\u2019s ability to maintain a fair, egalitarian work environment amidst diverse demographics with varying needs. Where an employer is unable to accommodate a myriad of religious accommodations, how will this standard enable an employer to decide who should receive the accommodation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following oral argument and prior to the Court\u2019s opinion, one legal expert worried that Groff<\/em> could become a \u201cwolf in sheep\u2019s clothing<\/a>,\u201d enabling religious conservatives to blatantly discriminate and seek accommodations from \u201cwork[ing] with members of the LGBTQ community or someone of the opposite sex.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an area perhaps most ripe for abuse, some argued that an expansion in religious accommodations would drastically inhibit industries already plagued by chronic staffing shortages<\/a>. For example, for small regional hospitals struggling to maintain an acceptable number of nurses and certified nursing assistants, could Groff<\/em>\u2019s holding pressure healthcare employers to accept more Sabbath day accommodations at the expense of patient safety?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: A Religious Duty for Fairness<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Groff<\/em> correctly \u201creaffirms the careful balance<\/a> necessary to protect religious freedom and enable employers to implement policies necessary to manage their workplaces.\u201d But by resisting the urge to drastically lower the threshold for religious accommodations, the Court signaled its commitment to fairness for all<\/a> parties, employers, and employees alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Religious conservatives should not deride this decision as not going far enough but rather celebrate a win for religious practice while simultaneously recognizing a need to respect the genuine needs of their employers and fellow employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As one advocate for a balance<\/a> of religious freedom and secular protections put it, \u201c[d]rawing a clear line in the sand that religious freedom is a shield that protects not a sword to harm others is vital to preserving true religious freedom in America.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all, the one leper who truly became \u201cwhole<\/a>\u201d did so by avoiding an unrighteous boast and quietly thanking his healer before meekly departing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Benjamin T. Craig, Vol. 22 Staff Member Introduction \u201cIt shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer\u2026 to discriminate against any individual\u2026because of his\u2026 religion\u2026.\u201d This protection, outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, enshrines our nation\u2019s commitment to protect the religious devotee\u2019s right to free exercise without fear of …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":4160,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[396,11],"tags":[119,133,156,237,267,289,290,291,356],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4157"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4157"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4157\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5263,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4157\/revisions\/5263"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4160"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}