The United States Supreme Court’s 2022-23 term has ended with two strong religious liberty decisions, including a unanimous decision requiring employers to do more to accommodate employees who do not want to work on their Sabbath.
Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General
Yesterday, the court ruled unanimously in favor of a postal worker in Pennsylvania in a dispute over how far employers must go to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath request. Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier from Pennsylvania, argued that the U.S. Postal Service should not require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, which he observes as the Sabbath.
The Court affirmed precedent holding that employers must "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious beliefs and practices, so long as such accommodation would not create an "undue hardship" on the business, but the new decision tightens the "undue hardship" standard.
A Supreme Court case from 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, said employers could deny religious accommodations when they impose "more than a de minimis cost" on the business. Groff's attorney argued that the court should scrap the "de minimus" test in favor of the plain language of Title VII, which would define "undue burden" in the same way it is defined in other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the postal service, argued against overturning Hardison, noting that nearly half a century of case law would be "up for grabs" if the court created a new standard. But the court unanimously ruled in favor of Groff.
Groff was a substitute mail carrier who worked when other mail carriers were out sick or on vacation, which did not interfere with his keeping Sunday because the Postal Service did not operate on Sunday in his region. But Amazon delivers packages seven days a week. In 2013, Amazon contracted with the postal service to deliver Amazon packages, including on Sunday, resulting in postal workers being required to take Sunday shifts.
Initially, Groff was able to work out an arrangement with his supervisors to transfer to another branch that did not deliver on Sundays. When that branch also began Sunday deliveries, Groff was permitted to miss shifts, provided he could find someone to cover for him. However, Groff was frequently unable to do so and missed over two dozen Sunday shifts.
Officials said Groff’s absences created a tense environment and contributed to morale problems. In 2019, believing that he would be fired for missing Sunday shifts, Groff resigned. But lawyers from First Liberty Institute, Baker Botts LLP, the Church State Council, and the Independence Law Center, agreed to take his case.
“This is a landmark victory, not only for Gerald, but for every American. No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their job,” said Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel for First Liberty. “The Court’s decision today restores religious freedom to every American in the workplace.
“I am delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed our nation’s commitment to providing equal opportunity and fair treatment in the workplace,” Groff wrote in an op-ed for Fox News Digital. “More than that, the Justices affirmed my decision to trust God by honoring the Lord’s Day.”
Here, we should note that high profile litigation in which a party contends that Sunday is the “Lord’s Day” provides a superb opening and opportunity for Seventh-day Adventists to show that Sunday is not the true Bible Sabbath. For Example, there is no reason to believe that John the Revelator was referring to Sunday when he wrote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” (Rev. 1:10). Scripture is unequivocal that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mat. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5.), which is Saturday, not Sunday.
It is important to note that yesterday’s ruling does not end the Groff lawsuit. Rather, the court struck down the old “de minimis” standard for religious accommodation and replaced it with a higher standard. Groff’s case will have to be re-analyzed by the lower court under the new law. So Groff could still lose his case.
“We agree with the Supreme Court’s clarification, which accepts the arguments we made before the Court, and which is fully consistent with the standard we apply when seeking to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices of our employees,” the Postal Service said. “For those reasons, and because we believe the lower court will conclude that providing the requested accommodation here would impose a substantial burden on the Postal Service, we are confident that the Postal Service will again prevail when the case is remanded."
303 Creative, LLC v. Aubrey Elenis
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of an evangelical Christian webpage designer from Colorado who refuses to work on same-sex weddings.
The court held that Lorie Smith, as a creative professional, has a free speech right under the First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages she disagrees with. Hence, she cannot be punished under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law for refusing to design websites for gay couples.
Smith, who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and has a small business designing websites, pre-emptively sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept jobs from people planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting a website. Smith argued that as a creative professional she has a free speech right to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her religious values.
The First Amendment protects a nation “where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands," wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, for the majority. “No public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. . . . public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”
The ruling would create a freedom of speech exception to the laws of the 29 states that decree some form of non-discrimination against LGBTQ+ in public accommodations.
"This is a victory not just for me, but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith said at a press briefing.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for herself and two other dissenting justices, said the court's ruling was part of "a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities" and a “heartbreaking” type of "reactionary exclusion."
She compared Smith's situation to restaurants in the Jim Crow south that would refuse to serve blacks in the dining area, but would allow them to order out and pick up their orders from a side counter.
The ruling applies only to those involved in creative or artistic expression that amounts to a form of speech. It does not apply to the guy who sells widgets at the hardware store; he still must sell the widgets to all comers, including a man wearing a dress.
The original idea behind the “public accommodation” laws was to prevent hotels and restaurants from refusing to serve blacks, and those types of business will still be required to serve LGBTQ+ customers under this ruling.
Religious liberty expert Douglas Laycock said, “the core of this is you can't be compelled to use your creative talents in service of speech that you fundamentally disagree with. That's a pretty clear category.”
Michael McConnell, of Stanford, noted that in January, 2017, at least eight fashion designers, including Sophie Theallet, Marc Jacobs, Tom Ford, Derek Lam, and Philip Lim, said they would refuse to design a dress for Melania Trump to wear to the inaugural balls on the night of January 20th 2017. “Virtually everyone interviewed for a Washington Post story thought it was extremely important that these dress designers were able to refuse to create a gown for the Trump inauguration,” McConnell said in an interview with NPR.
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 2 Cor. 3:17.