![]() ![]() “I hope this decision allows others to be able to maintain their convictions without living in fear of losing their jobs because of what they believe,” he said. Groff said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling that he was grateful the Supreme Court heard his case. He sued the Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious practice. Groff resigned in 2019 rather than wait to be fired. It also meant other carriers had to deliver more Sunday mail than they otherwise would. Officials said Groff’s absences created a tense environment and contributed to morale problems. Whenever Groff was scheduled on a Sunday, a different carrier had to work or his spot went unfilled. Eventually, however, that post office was required to do them, too. To avoid the shifts, Groff initially transferred to a more rural post office not yet doing Sunday deliveries. ![]() When an contract with the Postal Service required carriers to start delivering packages on Sundays, Groff balked. The justices sent Groff’s case back to a lower court for another look in light of their decision.įor years, Groff was a fill-in mail carrier in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country who worked on days when other mail carriers were off. Other examples include employee wanting to display a religious symbol in the workplace. ![]() The administration has said that requests for religious accommodation come up most often when employees seek schedule changes such as having the Sabbath off or midday prayer breaks or exemptions from a company’s dress code or grooming policies. … We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business,” Alito wrote. “In this case, both parties agree that the ‘de minimis’ test is not right, but they differ slightly in the alternative language they prefer. Updated on Octo8:21pm EDT Southwest under fire after video surfaces purportedly showing pilot saying 'Let's go Brandon' Several offended social media users vowed to stop flying. Hardison, says in part that employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose “more than a de minimis cost” on the business.ĭuring arguments in Groff’s case in April the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Postal Service, told the justices that the Hardison case as a whole actually requires an employer who wants to deny an accommodation to show more.īut Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that while some lower courts have understood Hardison the way the administration suggested, other courts incorrectly latched on to the “de minimis” language “as the governing standard.” But a 1977 Supreme Court case, Trans World Airlines v. E-Pilot Evening Edition Home Page Close MenuĪ federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would be an “undue hardship” for the business. The captain of a Southwest Airlines flight that made a hard landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York in July has been fired, a spokeswoman for the airline said Wednesday. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |