High Court Hands Down 9-0 Verdict in Widely Anticipated Case

Streett’s position emphasized that the law’s plain language, rather than the Hardison precedent, should define undue hardship, aligning it with other federal statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, where the threshold for hardship is measured in terms of significant difficulty or expense.

By using the Hardison “de minimis” test, he argued, courts had consistently allowed employers to sidestep their legal obligations.

Postal worker unions, including the American Postal Workers Union, had expressed concern about how religious accommodations could affect co-workers’ schedules, particularly when weekends are typically shared time off for family, community, and personal obligations.

In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court, the union noted that granting one employee a day off for religious observance might disrupt the work-life balance of others who rely on weekends for childcare, rest, or personal matters.

They argued that weekends serve as a collective day of rest and should not be considered a special privilege solely for those with religious obligations.

Nonetheless, Groff’s legal team stressed that the choice imposed on him and others like him was fundamentally unfair.

Minority religious groups—including representatives of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism—filed amicus briefs explaining that the Hardison standard had disproportionately affected their communities.

They highlighted that devout employees often faced untenable decisions, forced to choose between their livelihood and the practice of their faith.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council described the Hardison precedent as “forcing devout employees to make an impossible daily choice between religious duty and livelihood,” emphasizing the urgent need for judicial reform.

The Supreme Court’s decision to side unanimously with Groff marks a dramatic shift in the interpretation of religious accommodation laws.

Legal experts, including Chapman University law professor James Phillips, had predicted that the case could see strong alignment across the political spectrum, with both conservative and liberal justices recognizing the inequities embedded in the Hardison precedent.

Phillips noted that this case represented a rare moment where the protection of religious liberty resonated across ideological lines, highlighting the foundational principle that the law should safeguard individual rights in the workplace without imposing undue sacrifices on employees’ core beliefs.

The case also sheds light on the evolution of the U.S. Postal Service’s operational priorities. Continue reading…