Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

[Ken]

And from CNN[*]:



I hope you can appreciate how absurd it is for an employer to command an employee to choose a different day to observe the Sabbath.

[*] My apologies for using a poor news source.

From the news reporting, his actual job was to work as a substitute carrier on weekends and holidays when the regular mail carriers had off. In other words, he was not working Monday through Friday but was in a job for which the actual duties were to work Saturday and Sunday. So he already had 5 days of rest each week.

Which yes, was different than the duties that existed when he was hired prior to 2013. But that happens, job descriptions and duties change. He did not have an employment contract that guaranteed him fixed hours in perpetuity.

So by taking Sundays off he was actually taking off 50% of his job and creating undue burdens on his co-workers as the quote you provided states. At that point it was clear he was in the wrong job. If you are in a job that exclusively works weekends and holidays and 50% of the hours are on Sundays then I would suggest you are in the wrong job if you have a religious objection to working on Sunday. There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs for which that isn't the case.

As an employer, and (I hope) a decent human being, I wouldn't take the schedule for one of my Sabbath-keeping employees who was hired as a part-time fill-in for Monday through Friday, and modify it so that he now needs to work Friday and Saturday. That would be rude and cruel. I don't treat employees that way. There's also a variety of other things that might be legal to do to employees but I don't do them because it wouldn't be right.

Sure, but that is a different argument.

There are actually a LONG list of things that a good and honorable employer *should* do to treat his or her employees well. Starting with things like paying them a fair and living wage and treating them with respect. Something vast numbers of employers fall short of across this country. Including some Mennonite-run businesses who might not work on Sundays but mistreat or disrespect their employees in other ways.

Nevertheless, as an employer you do have a legal right to adapt your business to changing circumstances. We don't freeze the economy in place as it was in say 1900, 1950, or 2000. Employers are constantly adjusting work duties, responsibilities, training requirements, qualifications, and yes hours.

If, for example, you run a grocery and decide to close your in-house bakery or in-house butcher shop for economic reasons then your butchers or bakers are going to have to adapt to new work duties and probably new hours if they want to keep working for you. They aren't entitled to those particular jobs in perpetuity simply because those were the jobs that they were hired to do at some point in the past. If you can accommodate them with new jobs then great. You should do so. But if your baker is used to working from midnight to 8 am and your store is open from 9 to 5 then maybe you can't accommodate them in their same old hours since you aren't doing in-house baking anymore. And if they are unwilling to work days then there isn't much you can do and they probably need to find another job. And so you help them with that transition as best as you can.

[RZehr]

Listen to what you are saying.

…Which yes, was different than the duties that existed when he was hired prior to 2013. But that happens, job descriptions and duties change. He did not have an employment contract that guaranteed him fixed hours in perpetuity.
….
.… If you are in a job that exclusively works weekends and holidays and 50% of the hours are on Sundays then I would suggest you are in the wrong job…
….
…There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs for which that isn't the case.

You are taking this approach to minimize matter for Groff. Yet, we can say these exact things in support of Groff. His coworkers:
- don’t have a employment contract
- don’t have guaranteed fixed hours in perpetuity
- if they are in a job that works exclusively on weekends and holidays and 50% of Sundays maybe they are in the wrong job

…Nevertheless, as an employer you do have a legal right to adapt your business to changing circumstances. We don't freeze the economy in place as it was in say 1900, 1950, or 2000. Employers are constantly adjusting work duties, responsibilities, training requirements, qualifications, and yes hours.

Amen! Maybe we don’t freeze employment law, and religious protections in 1977 either.
If Groff wins, it will just be one more employment factor that changes. One of many, many, obligations that the government has forced upon unwilling employers and employees in the last 50 years.

If, for example, you run a grocery and decide to close your in-house bakery or in-house butcher shop for economic reasons then your butchers or bakers are going to have to adapt to new work duties and probably new hours if they want to keep working for you. They aren't entitled to those particular jobs in perpetuity simply because those were the jobs that they were hired to do at some point in the past. If you can accommodate them with new jobs then great. You should do so. But if your baker is used to working from midnight to 8 am and your store is open from 9 to 5 then maybe you can't accommodate them in their same old hours since you aren't doing in-house baking anymore. And if they are unwilling to work days then there isn't much you can do and they probably need to find another job. And so you help them with that transition as best as you can.

Right on the nose. If the unreligious coworkers and employers are forced to make yet another change, they will just have to do so I guess. If they are unwilling to work on Sunday, then they will have to find someone how will, or close on Sunday.
After all “They aren't entitled to those particular jobs in perpetuity simply because those were the jobs that they were hired to do at some point in the past.”

And I’ll reiterate, this cases outcome is actually not viewed as super critical to me. It’s just that I think it does, in light of other employee rights and employer obligations, seem like it would make sense from the standpoint of a consistent application of other current workplace laws.

[Ken]

Listen to what you are saying.

…Which yes, was different than the duties that existed when he was hired prior to 2013. But that happens, job descriptions and duties change. He did not have an employment contract that guaranteed him fixed hours in perpetuity.
….
.… If you are in a job that exclusively works weekends and holidays and 50% of the hours are on Sundays then I would suggest you are in the wrong job…
….
…There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs for which that isn't the case.

You are taking this approach to minimize matter for Groff. Yet, we can say these exact things in support of Groff. His coworkers:
- don’t have a employment contract
- don’t have guaranteed fixed hours in perpetuity
- if they are in a job that works exclusively on weekends and holidays and 50% of Sundays maybe they are in the wrong job

…Nevertheless, as an employer you do have a legal right to adapt your business to changing circumstances. We don't freeze the economy in place as it was in say 1900, 1950, or 2000. Employers are constantly adjusting work duties, responsibilities, training requirements, qualifications, and yes hours.

Amen! Maybe we don’t freeze employment law, and religious protections in 1977 either.
If Groff wins, it will just be one more employment factor that changes. One of many, many, obligations that the government has forced upon unwilling employers and employees in the last 50 years.

If, for example, you run a grocery and decide to close your in-house bakery or in-house butcher shop for economic reasons then your butchers or bakers are going to have to adapt to new work duties and probably new hours if they want to keep working for you. They aren't entitled to those particular jobs in perpetuity simply because those were the jobs that they were hired to do at some point in the past. If you can accommodate them with new jobs then great. You should do so. But if your baker is used to working from midnight to 8 am and your store is open from 9 to 5 then maybe you can't accommodate them in their same old hours since you aren't doing in-house baking anymore. And if they are unwilling to work days then there isn't much you can do and they probably need to find another job. And so you help them with that transition as best as you can.

Right on the nose. If the unreligious coworkers and employers are forced to make yet another change, they will just have to do so I guess. If they are unwilling to work on Sunday, then they will have to find someone how will, or close on Sunday.
After all “They aren't entitled to those particular jobs in perpetuity simply because those were the jobs that they were hired to do at some point in the past.”

And I’ll reiterate, this cases outcome is actually not viewed as super critical to me. It’s just that I think it does, in light of other employee rights and employer obligations, seem like it would make sense from the standpoint of a consistent application of other current workplace laws.

Yes. If Groff wins then all the Supreme Court is going to do is push the bright line defining what is a reasonable accommodation in one direction or another. They aren't going to erase that line. You aren't going to have to spend $1 million building a Buddhist shrine in your workplace simply because one employee demands it. That would be unreasonable.

My guess is that if they move that line they aren't going to move it very far. Maybe just clarify some ambiguities in the current law to the benefit of religion. But what do I know? No more than anyone else here. I think they will be loathe to do anything that causes any major disruptions in the workplace. And mandatory Sunday's off for people who request it would certainly cause major disruptions in many workplaces. This isn't really about the Post Office but hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small across the country.

[RZehr]

I would to agree with that. Other than the size of the impact across American businesses. I think it wouldn’t be as major as you seem to expect it would be.

[Sliceitup]

I read some more articles on this case and my guess is that SCOTUS will remove the “de minimus” part of Hardison to make it more clear that businesses have to do more than the minimum to accommodate employees.

But even with that I think they might still rule against Groff because the post office did far more than the minimum in order to accommodate him. He was initially exempt from the Sunday deliveries, then when they no longer were able to do that he was able to transfer to a new post office. When the new post office began making Sunday deliveries they once again scheduled around him so that he wouldn’t need to work on Sunday. The other workers did more shifts. They said he could come in to do his deliveries in the afternoon after church services but he refused. Eventually one of those workers filed a grievance. It was only then that they required him to work on Sunday. And he didn’t show up. I feel like they did all they reasonably could to accommodate him.

Also wouldn’t be surprised if they make use of the “three buckets” system proposed by the attorney arguing for the Post Office.

[Ken]

I would to agree with that. Other than the size of the impact across American businesses. I think it wouldn’t be as major as you seem to expect it would be.

Except that they aren't creating some new rule related to working Sundays. They would be creating some new general rule or standard that would apply to every single type of workplace accommodation including not working Sundays.

So if they come up with a new standard it will still sometimes maybe apply to requests for Sundays off and maybe not apply to requests for Sundays off depending on the specific circumstances of that individual workplace.

[Josh]

It's not a "request for Sundays off".

There are certain religions that have a holy day off once per week. The overwhelmingly majority of them observe sundown Friday to sundown Saturday for a period of 26 hours. This isn't some big mystery or something that people can fake, either. It is very simple to ask (and to find out) if someone has been observant about being part of a religion that keeps the Sabbath.

Here's a rather obvious solution for you, Ken:

- Observant Jews need to be off Friday evening through Saturday evening. (Work shifts in Israel often resume on Saturday evenings, such as restaurants, which open around 7pm typically.)

- The small number of Christians who don't work on Sundays need off from midnight to midnight on Sunday.

It is obvious these two groups of people can easily cover each other.

By the way, the post office doesn't do Sunday delivery around here anymore, and they don't do Saturday delivery regularly either. I'm still waiting for a Priority Mail package sent from California on Monday to show up.

[RZehr]

I would to agree with that. Other than the size of the impact across American businesses. I think it wouldn’t be as major as you seem to expect it would be.

Except that they aren't creating some new rule related to working Sundays. They would be creating some new general rule or standard that would apply to every single type of workplace accommodation including not working Sundays.

So if they come up with a new standard it will still sometimes maybe apply to requests for Sundays off and maybe not apply to requests for Sundays off depending on the specific circumstances of that individual workplace.

Fine. I just don’t think it would create a huge groundswell of requests for days off due to religious beliefs and practices. There may be in certain pockets of the country, but hardly anything everywhere else.

[Ken]

It's not a "request for Sundays off".

There are certain religions that have a holy day off once per week. The overwhelmingly majority of them observe sundown Friday to sundown Saturday for a period of 26 hours. This isn't some big mystery or something that people can fake, either. It is very simple to ask (and to find out) if someone has been observant about being part of a religion that keeps the Sabbath.

Here's a rather obvious solution for you, Ken:

- Observant Jews need to be off Friday evening through Saturday evening. (Work shifts in Israel often resume on Saturday evenings, such as restaurants, which open around 7pm typically.)

- The small number of Christians who don't work on Sundays need off from midnight to midnight on Sunday.

It is obvious these two groups of people can easily cover each other.

By the way, the post office doesn't do Sunday delivery around here anymore, and they don't do Saturday delivery regularly either. I'm still waiting for a Priority Mail package sent from California on Monday to show up.

You are missing the point. The case is not specifically about Sundays or any other day off. Taking days off from work is only one of hundreds of potential religious accommodations that might or might be burdensome on employers. The Supreme Court isn't going to be deciding about any days off from work. It will be deciding a more broader question about the definition of a substantive burden or unreasonable burden. That new standard will then have to be applied towards any request for any type of religious accommodation whether it is for days off work, different food in the cafeteria, different dress code standards, exemptions from vaccine requirements, or whatever.

So any employer faced with a request to take Sunday or Saturday or any other day off from work for religious reasons will just have a new test to apply to determine whether that request is a reasonable one that should be granted, or whether it is an unreasonable one that can legally ignored. Some requests for Sundays off may meet that new standard, others will not.

And that is assuming that the Supreme Court even rules in Groff's favor. If they rule against him then nothing changes.

[Josh]

You are missing the point.

No, I'm not. You've spent most of your posts here explaining how detrimental it is to the post office to not force employees to deliver on Sunday, and gone so far as to claim that if we don't have that, rural delivery will cease and people in Navajoland can't get their prescriptions delivered anymore.

If you wanted to make it about broader issues, perhaps you should have kept the focus there.

The case is not specifically about Sundays or any other day off. Taking days off from work is only one of hundreds of potential religious accommodations that might or might be burdensome on employers. The Supreme Court isn't going to be deciding about any days off from work. It will be deciding a more broader question about the definition of a substantive burden or unreasonable burden. That new standard will then have to be applied towards any request for any type of religious accommodation whether it is for days off work, different food in the cafeteria, different dress code standards, exemptions from vaccine requirements, or whatever.

I'm not seeing the problem. What's wrong with employers accommodating employees who have such religious needs? There are myriads of different accommodations made now for people with disabilities, and employers seem to have survived.

exemptions from vaccine requirements

This is a particularly interesting one for you to cite, since employees not getting vaccinated doesn't hurt anyone else - it is simply employees asking not to do a certain thing. If other employees think a vaccine will protect them from a disease, they can go get vaccinated for it. If the employer wants to mandate it for everyone else, then everyone else is protected... right?

Can't see how this one imposes any burden on an employer.