They highlighted that devout employees often faced untenable decisions, forced to choose between their livelihood and the practice of their faith.
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.
In 2013, the Postal Service entered into a contract with Amazon.com to deliver packages on Sundays, a change designed to increase revenue and maintain competitiveness in the delivery industry.
While this strategy proved profitable for the agency, it created conflicts for employees like Groff who observed a strict day of rest for religious reasons.
The court’s decision now clarifies that employees cannot be forced to violate deeply held religious convictions simply to comply with corporate contracts or operational demands.Continue reading…
