Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

[RZehr]

Seems like you were earlier in this thread saying how upending a Goff win would be for business.

The affirmative action ruling will be pretty inconsequential. Harvard is already vowing to find loopholes. Yet all we hear about is this “6-3 conservative ruling”. Much political ado about nothing.

[Ken]

Seems like you were earlier in this thread saying how upending a Goff win would be for business.

The affirmative action ruling will be pretty inconsequential. Harvard is already vowing to find loopholes. Yet all we hear about is this “6-3 conservative ruling”. Much political ado about nothing.

As I understand it, Goff didn't win his case.

All the Supreme Court did here is invalidate the previous "de minimis" standard for determining if a religious accommodation is reasonable and say that the courts and employers should use a more "substantial burden" standard. Then remanded the case back to the lower courts to be retried on that higher standard. I might be using the incorrect terms here because I don't have the case in front of me. But that's basically what they did.

So they go back to the lower court and re-argue the case based on a tighter standard. It might well be that the USPS is still on solid grounds under that higher standard. Or it might not be the case. That is a subject for the trial court.

So it seems to be that several things can happen here.

1. They retry the case which might take more years and Goff wins or looses.
2. They settle in some fashion (he gets his job back or a different job, or gets a monetary award of some kind)
3. Goff decides to drop the case because he has moved on with his life and doesn't have more years and dollars to relitigate.

What we didn't get from the Supreme Court is a decision that Goff gets to work for the USPS in that specific position and not work Sundays.

[RZehr]

Seems like you were earlier in this thread saying how upending a Goff win would be for business.

The affirmative action ruling will be pretty inconsequential. Harvard is already vowing to find loopholes. Yet all we hear about is this “6-3 conservative ruling”. Much political ado about nothing.

As I understand it, Goff didn't win his case.

All the Supreme Court did here is invalidate the previous "de minimis" standard for determining if a religious accommodation is reasonable and say that the courts and employers should use a more "substantial burden" standard. Then remanded the case back to the lower courts to be retried on that higher standard. I might be using the incorrect terms here because I don't have the case in front of me. But that's basically what they did.

So they go back to the lower court and re-argue the case based on a tighter standard. It might well be that the USPS is still on solid grounds under that higher standard. Or it might not be the case. That is a subject for the trial court.

So it seems to be that several things can happen here.

1. They retry the case which might take more years and Goff wins or looses.
2. They settle in some fashion (he gets his job back or a different job, or gets a monetary award of some kind)
3. Goff decides to drop the case because he has moved on with his life and doesn't have more years and dollars to relitigate.

What we didn't get from the Supreme Court is a decision that Goff gets to work for the USPS in that specific position and not work Sundays.

Quibble to your hearts content. Pretty sure that a 9-0 ruling in his favor is about as much as a win as one could hope for. This is a constitutional matter, not a divorce custody case. And I’m pretty sure you would say he “lost” if it was a 9-0 ruling against him.

[Ken]

Quibble to your hearts content. Pretty sure that a 9-0 ruling in his favor is about as much as a win as one could hope for. This is a constitutional matter, not a divorce custody case. And I’m pretty sure you would say he “lost” if it was a 9-0 ruling against him.

It is a pretty big quibble. Did Goss win his case? Is he getting his job back or damages?

No he is not. At least not yet. Because as the NYT reports: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/p ... orker.html

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected a test that had long been used to determine what accommodations an employer must make for religious workers, but declined to rule on the merits of the case, sending it back to a lower court to consider under a new standard.

So he gets to argue his case all over again under a new standard. Will he win? Who knows. But he gets to start all over again.

[Sliceitup]

Seems like you were earlier in this thread saying how upending a Goff win would be for business.

The affirmative action ruling will be pretty inconsequential. Harvard is already vowing to find loopholes. Yet all we hear about is this “6-3 conservative ruling”. Much political ado about nothing.

As I understand it, Goff didn't win his case.

All the Supreme Court did here is invalidate the previous "de minimis" standard for determining if a religious accommodation is reasonable and say that the courts and employers should use a more "substantial burden" standard. Then remanded the case back to the lower courts to be retried on that higher standard. I might be using the incorrect terms here because I don't have the case in front of me. But that's basically what they did.

So they go back to the lower court and re-argue the case based on a tighter standard. It might well be that the USPS is still on solid grounds under that higher standard. Or it might not be the case. That is a subject for the trial court.

So it seems to be that several things can happen here.

1. They retry the case which might take more years and Goff wins or looses.
2. They settle in some fashion (he gets his job back or a different job, or gets a monetary award of some kind)
3. Goff decides to drop the case because he has moved on with his life and doesn't have more years and dollars to relitigate.

What we didn't get from the Supreme Court is a decision that Goff gets to work for the USPS in that specific position and not work Sundays.

Quibble to your hearts content. Pretty sure that a 9-0 ruling in his favor is about as much as a win as one could hope for. This is a constitutional matter, not a divorce custody case. And I’m pretty sure you would say he “lost” if it was a 9-0 ruling against him.

It’s definitely a win for him in that it gives him a fighting chance. If they had ruled against him then it would be over. But I suspect he will not win when this goes back to the lower courts.

I listened to some of the testimony when they argued the case and it seemed pretty clear that almost everyone thought that courts were not actually using ‘de minimus’ as the measuring stick. But the argument was made, actually by both sides, that it should be clarified.

I look at the case like this: A court said wood must be measured with a measuring device to see whether it meets a specific length. And the court says that you can use a dressmakers tape. But it also says that the tape used must be accurate.

So then one day someone says “my 2x4 wasn’t as long as they said it was. They cheated me.” And so the courts look at the wood, and measure it. And even though the original opinion mentioned a dressmakers tape, no court is actually using that standard when they judge the wood. They know dressmakers tape is notorious for stretching, therefore doesn’t usually meet the standard for accuracy. So basically, none ever uses that measuring device. They use more accurate methods.

But Joe Carpenter says “we don’t think this was measured properly, because look, they could have used a dressmakers tape and everyone knows they’re not accurate.” And the other side says “yeah, that’s why we never use that. So basically your case was still decided correctly.”

The court has now said “yeah, we no longer want to use dressmakers tape as a standard. Let’s instead go with the other phrase in the original court opinion that says the measurement device must be accurate. Ok, lower courts, go measure the wood again.”

Insert de minimus for carpenters tape
Insert undue hardship for accuracy

[Ken]

As I understand it, Goff didn't win his case.

All the Supreme Court did here is invalidate the previous "de minimis" standard for determining if a religious accommodation is reasonable and say that the courts and employers should use a more "substantial burden" standard. Then remanded the case back to the lower courts to be retried on that higher standard. I might be using the incorrect terms here because I don't have the case in front of me. But that's basically what they did.

So they go back to the lower court and re-argue the case based on a tighter standard. It might well be that the USPS is still on solid grounds under that higher standard. Or it might not be the case. That is a subject for the trial court.

So it seems to be that several things can happen here.

1. They retry the case which might take more years and Goff wins or looses.
2. They settle in some fashion (he gets his job back or a different job, or gets a monetary award of some kind)
3. Goff decides to drop the case because he has moved on with his life and doesn't have more years and dollars to relitigate.

What we didn't get from the Supreme Court is a decision that Goff gets to work for the USPS in that specific position and not work Sundays.

Quibble to your hearts content. Pretty sure that a 9-0 ruling in his favor is about as much as a win as one could hope for. This is a constitutional matter, not a divorce custody case. And I’m pretty sure you would say he “lost” if it was a 9-0 ruling against him.

It’s definitely a win for him in that it gives him a fighting chance. If they had ruled against him then it would be over. But I suspect he will not win when this goes back to the lower courts.

I listened to some of the testimony when they argued the case and it seemed pretty clear that almost everyone thought that courts were not actually using ‘de minimus’ as the measuring stick. But the argument was made, actually by both sides, that it should be clarified.

I look at the case like this: A court said wood must be measured with a measuring device to see whether it meets a specific length. And the court says that you can use a dressmakers tape. But it also says that the tape used must be accurate.

So then one day someone says “my 2x4 wasn’t as long as they said it was. They cheated me.” And so the courts look at the wood, and measure it. And even though the original opinion mentioned a dressmakers tape, no court is actually using that standard when they judge the wood. They know dressmakers tape is notorious for stretching, therefore doesn’t usually meet the standard for accuracy. So basically, none ever uses that measuring device. They use more accurate methods.

But Joe Carpenter says “we don’t think this was measured properly, because look, they could have used a dressmakers tape and everyone knows they’re not accurate.” And the other side says “yeah, that’s why we never use that. So basically your case was still decided correctly.”

The court has now said “yeah, we no longer want to use dressmakers tape as a standard. Let’s instead go with the other phrase in the original court opinion that says the measurement device must be accurate. Ok, lower courts, go measure the wood again.”

Insert de minimus for carpenters tape
Insert undue hardship for accuracy

I frankly think it is a bigger deal for other cases than for Goff. The USPS made a pretty compelling case that it would be substantially burdensome to accommodate him in that small office when they didn't actually have other staff who could take those shifts. So he very well still might not win under a higher standard.

It will have a much bigger effect is in other cases such as Muslims who want to wear headscarves or Catholics who want to wear crosses, etc. In those cases it will be very difficult for an employer to argue that letting a Muslim wear a head scarf places an undue burden on the employer.

[Josh]

Last I checked post offices are closed Sundays. I’m still waiting to hear why forcing people to work on Sunday is so critical (for an Amazon contract that long ago expired).