Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

[Valerie]

Can your obvious annoyance at Christians for not wanting to work on Sunday is very sad to me. I've worked in a store 8 and 1/2 years and you're feeling about it is so much worse than non-believers who have no issue with Christians not working on sundays. They have no issue with working on Sundays themselves. They get there preferred times off as well. Maybe they get Saturdays off because the one or two Christians get Sundays off. It's hard for me to accept that you love Christians for this more than non-believers do.

Regarding the computer schedules and for example your daughter working at Safeway where you don't know your schedule from one week to the next that's a part of working for places like that like I do. It's wonderful that management allows us to turn in time off requests or adapt certain special sports obligations as some employees have etc and that causes the schedule to change every week because they are accommodating employees request for time off. In other words one week I might get Thursday off the next week Wednesday because there were too many requests for Wednesday off so that's why they are trying to accommodate.

Your point about it being important for someone who is spiritual in nature as being just as important as someone who wants to sit around and do nothing on the Lord's Day, can you please tell me why that would be important for that hiker to do so on Sunday?

[Ken]

Can your obvious annoyance at Christians for not wanting to work on Sunday is very sad to me. I've worked in a store 8 and 1/2 years and you're feeling about it is so much worse than non-believers who have no issue with Christians not working on sundays. They have no issue with working on Sundays themselves. They get there preferred times off as well. Maybe they get Saturdays off because the one or two Christians get Sundays off. It's hard for me to accept that you love Christians for this more than non-believers do.

Regarding the computer schedules and for example your daughter working at Safeway where you don't know your schedule from one week to the next that's a part of working for places like that like I do. It's wonderful that management allows us to turn in time off requests or adapt certain special sports obligations as some employees have etc and that causes the schedule to change every week because they are accommodating employees request for time off. In other words one week I might get Thursday off the next week Wednesday because there were too many requests for Wednesday off so that's why they are trying to accommodate.

Your point about it being important for someone who is spiritual in nature as being just as important as someone who wants to sit around and do nothing on the Lord's Day, can you please tell me why that would be important for that hiker to do so on Sunday?

I'm not even slightly annoyed at Christians or anyone else for not wanting to work on Sunday. People have a lot of reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday. None of them annoy me.

I simply don't agree that under the law it is reasonable to preference Christians over everyone else who might have their own reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday. And to burden other workers with the obligation. In this particular case the Post Office was short-handed and didn't have enough workers to cover Sunday shifts. So they had to mandate an equitable Sunday rotation where the burden was shared equally. For them to accommodate this person's request to never work Sunday would have meant that others would have been required to sacrifice their own plans and take on extra Sunday shifts that they didn't want. That is the part that is unreasonable.

If someone in a job with Sunday duties can find other workers to voluntary take on their shifts and duties then fine. That is they way things have always been done and the courts don't need to get involved. No problem whatsoever and employers shouldn't object. My wife is always swapping shifts with her colleagues. That sort of thing happens all the time and they don't need a Federal court to figure it out.

As to why someone might specifically want Sundays off to hike or any other reason? Because Sunday is already the day that most other people have off who are in normal working-week jobs and so that is when a lot of organized non-work activities are scheduled. So a lot of outdoor groups and clubs meet on Sundays. It is also they day that one's children and spouse are more likely to be off.

My point is not that one necessarily needs to go hiking on Sunday. But that someone who wants that day off for whatever reason should have equal claim as anyone else.

[ken_sylvania]

How do you figure that, if a Christian does not work on Sunday, he or she is "burdening" their co-workers? In cases such as the one under discussion, the person refusing to work on Sunday isn't forcing anyone else to work.

[ohio jones]

I simply don't agree that under the law it is reasonable to preference Christians over everyone else who might have their own reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday.

You aren't paying attention are you? We are not talking about preferencing Christians, we are talking about requiring accommodation for religious practices generally. Especially, as in this case, when conditions change after a person is already employed. And particularly when the employer is a government-related entity.

Nevertheless there is a simple solution for employers who want to operate 7 days a week: Hire equal numbers of observant Jews and practicing Christians. The Christians work Saturdays, the Jews work Sundays. Problem solved.

[Ken]

I simply don't agree that under the law it is reasonable to preference Christians over everyone else who might have their own reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday.

You aren't paying attention are you? We are not talking about preferencing Christians, we are talking about requiring accommodation for religious practices generally. Especially, as in this case, when conditions change after a person is already employed. And particularly when the employer is a government-related entity

No, YOU are the one who isn't paying attention.

This case is EXACTLY about preferencing Christians. The facts of the case as reported in the media are as follows.

The Post Office for 10 years (since 2013) has had Sunday duty hours for Sunday deliveries. That means staffing sorting centers and delivery routes. They are also chronically short handed, especially in rural areas.

As reported in the media, their procedure in this case was to ask for volunteers to work Sundays and then if that was insufficient to fill shifts, they would assign mandatory Sunday shifts to everyone who didn't want to voluntarily work Sundays on an equitable rotating basis. This means EVERYONE who is assigned a rotating Sunday shift does not want to be there for whatever reason since they did not volunteer. Gerald Groff refused to show up for any of his assigned Sunday shifts which meant that others who did not want to be there were forced to pick up the slack, either working longer hours, or coming in to work when they would otherwise have had the day off. He was demanding that his religious reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday be given preference over those of all of his co-workers who also did not want to work Sundays. So that is exactly what this case is about.

The Post Office claims that this is not a "reasonable religious accommodation" because it places an undue burden on the agency and other workers. And it would give preference to Groff over every other worker who has other reasons for why they don't want to work Sunday shifts.

This case is about whether this particular accommodation is "reasonable" or whether it places an undue burden on the employer or other employees.

[HondurasKeiser]

I simply don't agree that under the law it is reasonable to preference Christians over everyone else who might have their own reasons for not wanting to work on Sunday.

You aren't paying attention are you? We are not talking about preferencing Christians, we are talking about requiring accommodation for religious practices generally. Especially, as in this case, when conditions change after a person is already employed. And particularly when the employer is a government-related entity

This case is EXACTLY about preferencing Christians. The facts of the case as reported in the media are as follows.

The specifics of the case involve a Christian and his request for a religious exemption but any ruling would never be so narrow as to simply privilege or preference Christians. It would invariably create an exemption for religious observance more broadly speaking - that is to say, if the specifics of this case dealt with a Jew on Saturdays, the case-law coming out of the ruling would inevitably redound to the benefit of observant Christians, Muslims, Hindis, etc., assuming the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

[Ken]

You aren't paying attention are you? We are not talking about preferencing Christians, we are talking about requiring accommodation for religious practices generally. Especially, as in this case, when conditions change after a person is already employed. And particularly when the employer is a government-related entity

This case is EXACTLY about preferencing Christians. The facts of the case as reported in the media are as follows.

The specifics of the case involve a Christian and his request for a religious exemption but any ruling would never be so narrow as to simply privilege or preference Christians. It would invariably create an exemption for religious observance more broadly speaking - that is to say, if the specifics of this case dealt with a Jew on Saturdays, the case-law coming out of the ruling would inevitably redound to the benefit of observant Christians, Muslims, Hindis, etc., assuming the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

The law already provides for reasonable accommodations for religious practices and has since the Supreme Court ruled on this same issue in 1977. And the standard is that religious accommodations are reasonable if they do not place an undue burden on the employer (including other employees). The Court also defined what it meant by "undue burden" and so has subsequent regulation.

This case is about whether to change that undue burden standard and if so, how far to go in placing burdens on employers to accommodate religious preferences. If the court upholds their previous standard from 1977 then he will lose. If they decide to change the standard then who knows what that means because we will be in new territory and the court will have to come up with some new threshold for defining what is is a "reasonable accommodation" versus an "undue burden"

[HondurasKeiser]

This case is EXACTLY about preferencing Christians. The facts of the case as reported in the media are as follows.

The specifics of the case involve a Christian and his request for a religious exemption but any ruling would never be so narrow as to simply privilege or preference Christians. It would invariably create an exemption for religious observance more broadly speaking - that is to say, if the specifics of this case dealt with a Jew on Saturdays, the case-law coming out of the ruling would inevitably redound to the benefit of observant Christians, Muslims, Hindis, etc., assuming the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

The law already provides for accommodations for religious practices and has since the Supreme Court ruled on this same issue in 1977. And the standard is that religious accommodations do not place an undue burden on the employer (including other employees). The Court also defined what it meant by "undue burden" and so has subsequent regulation.

This case is about whether to change that undue burden standard and if so, how far to go in placing burdens on employers to accommodate religious preferences. If the court upholds their previous standard from 1977 then he will lose. If they decide to change the standard then who knows what that means because we will be in new territory and the court will have to come up with some new threshold for defining what is is a "reasonable accommodation" versus an "undue burden"

Well then I guess we shall see. Regardless, any change towards more "reasonable accommodations" will necessarily affect more than just Christians.

[RZehr]

If he wins, I’m curious what the repercussions will be for employer obligation for the physically handicapped.
Because if “undue burden” is redefined, then why wouldn’t the protected class of handicapped people get additional accommodation as well.

[Ken]

The specifics of the case involve a Christian and his request for a religious exemption but any ruling would never be so narrow as to simply privilege or preference Christians. It would invariably create an exemption for religious observance more broadly speaking - that is to say, if the specifics of this case dealt with a Jew on Saturdays, the case-law coming out of the ruling would inevitably redound to the benefit of observant Christians, Muslims, Hindis, etc., assuming the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

The law already provides for accommodations for religious practices and has since the Supreme Court ruled on this same issue in 1977. And the standard is that religious accommodations do not place an undue burden on the employer (including other employees). The Court also defined what it meant by "undue burden" and so has subsequent regulation.

This case is about whether to change that undue burden standard and if so, how far to go in placing burdens on employers to accommodate religious preferences. If the court upholds their previous standard from 1977 then he will lose. If they decide to change the standard then who knows what that means because we will be in new territory and the court will have to come up with some new threshold for defining what is is a "reasonable accommodation" versus an "undue burden"

Well then I guess we shall see. Regardless, any change towards more "reasonable accommodations" will necessarily affect more than just Christians.

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.