Supreme Court Weighs Overturning 1977 Precedent in USPS Worker’s Sunday Sabbath Dispute

A decades-old Supreme Court standard that allows employers to deny religious accommodations if they impose more than a trivial cost faces potential collapse after justices heard arguments Tuesday in a dispute between an evangelical Christian mail carrier and the United States Postal Service.

Gerald Groff, who worked as a rural carrier associate in Pennsylvania beginning in 2012, sued the USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after facing progressive discipline for refusing Sunday shifts. His case has become the vehicle for challenging Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, a 1977 ruling that interpreted the phrase “undue hardship” to mean any burden exceeding a “de minimis” — or minimal — cost to an employer. Religious liberty advocates have long argued that the Hardison standard effectively gutted Title VII’s mandate to accommodate workers’ faith practices, placing it far below the threshold required for disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which demands significant difficulty or expense before an employer can refuse.

During nearly two hours of oral arguments, a rare cross-ideological consensus emerged that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit applied the wrong framework when it ruled against Groff. Justice Elena Kagan observed a level of agreement among the bench, though deep divisions surfaced over whether to formally strike down the 1977 precedent or simply redefine its terms.

Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, urged the court to invalidate Hardison entirely, arguing the postal service wrongly claimed that respecting his client’s beliefs was too onerous. Justice Samuel Alito signaled openness to dismantling the old standard. But Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the practical fallout for businesses. Kavanaugh emphasized that workforce morale is critical to operational success, while several justices acknowledged the severe financial strain the USPS has endured, including multibillion-dollar losses tied to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 and the operational pivot required when the agency contracted with Amazon in 2013 to begin Sunday package deliveries.

That Amazon contract fundamentally altered Groff’s employment. Hired as a rural carrier associate — a role explicitly requiring schedule flexibility to cover absent career employees who had earned weekend exemptions — Groff found himself assigned to Sunday routes that conflicted with his observance of the Sabbath. The local post office attempted several workarounds, including adjusting his start times so he could attend church services and asking him to find colleagues willing to swap shifts. When voluntary swaps failed, the postmaster personally delivered packages to fill the gap. Management eventually suggested Groff choose a different day to observe his Sabbath, a proposal incompatible with his specific religious convictions.

Tensions escalated among staff forced to absorb his shifts. Groff filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency tasked with enforcing Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination, but ultimately resigned in 2019. His resignation letter cited an inability to find an accommodating atmosphere at the agency.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl dismissed Groff’s lawsuit, and a divided 3rd Circuit panel affirmed the decision last year, ruling that exempting Groff from Sundays imposed more than a de minimis cost by disrupting workflow and diminishing coworker morale. The appellate majority relied directly on the Hardison framework.

Judge Thomas Hardiman dissented from that 2-1 ruling, offering a legal theory that appeared to heavily influence the questions posed by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Hardiman argued that Title VII requires an employer to demonstrate harm to the business itself, not merely friction among coworkers. A George W. Bush appointee previously shortlisted for the Supreme Court seat ultimately filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Hardiman wrote that neither snow nor rain kept Groff from his appointed rounds, but his sincerely held religious belief precluded Sunday labor.

The Biden administration navigated a middle path during the proceedings. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the justices to clarify the law rather than overturn it outright. She argued employers should not be forced to operate shorthanded or routinely pay overtime to secure replacement workers for Sabbath observers, while conceding that administrative expenses associated with rearranging schedules remain a reasonable accommodation cost businesses must absorb.

Title VII claims require an employee to prove they hold a sincere religious belief conflicting with a job requirement, that they informed their employer, and that they suffered adverse action for noncompliance. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove either a good-faith effort to accommodate or that doing so would cause undue hardship. How the Supreme Court defines that final phrase will dictate workplace religious rights for millions of American employees across every industry.

Groff described the personal stakes of the conflict in a recent interview, characterizing Sunday worship as a time believers come together to celebrate their identity and God, making the demand to deliver Amazon parcels instead deeply saddening. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling before the current term concludes in late June.