Posted on 01/14/2023 4:25:18 PM PST by Olog-hai
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider what employers must do to accommodate religious employees, among eight new cases it added.
The cases are expected to be argued in April. In one involving a former postal employee, the justices will consider what accommodations employers must make for religious employees. The case comes when religious plaintiffs have generally fared well at the court, which is dominated 6-3 by conservative justices.
Under a federal civil rights law, employers can’t discriminate against employees because of their religion. The law says employees’ religious practices have to be accommodated unless the employer can demonstrate doing so is an “undue hardship” to the business. The justices are being asked to reconsider a 1977 Supreme Court case that challengers say means lower courts almost always side with employers “whenever an accommodation would impose any burden.”
The case the justices agreed to hear involves Gerald Groff, a former postal worker in Pennsylvania. Groff, a Christian, said his religious beliefs required him to be off on Sundays. Initially his bosses were able to accommodate him but eventually that ended. Groff resigned and sued the post office. Two lower courts have ruled against him. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Maybe in the past. And it begs the question as to whose game that was.
He might be able to claim constructive dismissal.
reads the petitioner responses in Groff v DeJoy "As for alleged co-worker problems, Respondent cites no evidence that Groff’s absences hindered it from performing its Sunday delivery obligations. Absent such evidence, Respondent cannot hope to show as a matter of law that imposition on Groff’s co-workers caused it significant difficulty or expense. Respondent notes that only one RCA was available to cover Groff’s few Sundays during Holtwood’s 2017 peak season—allegedly leading that RCA to eventually resign— and that an RCA at a different station allegedly resigned in part due to Groff’s accommodation. BIO 14-15; see also C.A. App. 617. On the former, that meant only that Holtwood had to “borrow” an RCA from another station during the 2017 peak season (as expressly allowed by the MOU, C.A. App. 675) and hire a replacement before (or borrow one during) the following peak season, and Respondent identifies no reason it could not have done so. On the latter, Respondent fails to show any hardship at the other station resulting from the RCA’s resignation. Mere co-worker impacts are not sufficient even under Hardison, see infra pp. 11- 12, much less under a higher standard. " The hubris in this one paragraph is pretty astounding.
They can titillate themselves with mental gymnastics over meaningless cases - while clearly unconstitutional mail-in ballots wreak havoc in our elections with not a peep out of these deep state cretins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.