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.