• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court hears religious tolerance case of postal worker who didn't work Sundays

VySky

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
33,632
Reaction score
12,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Will employee religious needs be met? I have mixed feelings on this. As an employer, you have a job to get done.

And sometimes, that's on a Sunday.

If it were me, I wouldn't take a job that required I even remotely stand the chance of working on Sunday. However, will the religious needs of employees fall under the umbrella of 'reasonable accommodation'?

=============================

WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide under what circumstances businesses must accommodate the needs of religious employees.

A case before the justices Tuesday involves a Christian mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania. He was told that as part of his job he'd need to start delivering Amazon packages on Sundays. He declined, saying his Sundays are for church and family. U.S. Postal Service officials initially tried to get substitutes for the man’s shifts, but they couldn’t always. When he didn’t show, that meant more work for others. Ultimately, the man quit and sued for religious discrimination.

The case is the latest religious confrontation the high court has been asked to referee. In recent years, the court's 6-3 conservative majority has been particularly sensitive to the concerns of religious plaintiffs. That includes a ruling last year in which the court said a public high school football coach should be allowed to pray on the field after games. Another case the court is weighing this term involves a Christian graphic artist who wants to create wedding websites, but doesn't want to serve gay couples.


www.wlwt.com

Supreme Court hears religious tolerance case of postal worker who didn't work Sundays

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide under what circumstances businesses must accommodate the needs of religious employees.
www.wlwt.com www.wlwt.com
 
Unless I am missing something, Sunday postal deliveries are a new thing (in the last few years). If there were no Sunday deliveries when the employee was hired, then there was no original expectation of any. In that case, I would think there could be a religious exception. On the flip side, if Sunday deliveries did exist when the person was hired, then they would really have no excuse.
 
If the Court sides with the mail carrier, many, many more religious exemptions will come.

Will the Supreme Court open yet another Pandora's Box?

Maybe it's time to bring back blue laws.
 
j brown's body said:
If the Court sides with the mail carrier, many, many more religious exemptions will come.

Will the Supreme Court open yet another Pandora's Box?

Maybe it's time to bring back blue laws.
Click to expand...
We still have them to some degree here in TN. No beer sales until after 12 on Sunday. They treat wine completely different. Much more stringent rules.
 
Employers already have to accommodate employees religious requests provided that they don't impose an undue hardship. This case is more about what constitutes an "undue hardship." The basic - and pretty vague - rule right now is that employers can deny the request if it imposes more than a minimal cost.
 
Gaius46 said:
Employers already have to accommodate employees religious requests provided that they don't impose an undue hardship. This case is more about what constitutes an "undue hardship." The basic - and pretty vague - rule right now is that employers can deny the request if it imposes more than a minimal cost.
Click to expand...
Given the resources the US Postal Service has at its disposal, i.e. its ~$80b annual budget, and the fact that for most of its history it never deemed operating on Sundays to be important, it seems hard to believe they could defend the suit successfully claiming this one man's refusal to work on Sundays created an "undue burden."
 
Airyaman said:
Unless I am missing something, Sunday postal deliveries are a new thing (in the last few years). If there were no Sunday deliveries when the employee was hired, then there was no original expectation of any. In that case, I would think there could be a religious exception. On the flip side, if Sunday deliveries did exist when the person was hired, then they would really have no excuse.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing. From what I could find - USPS does not deliver regular mail on Sundays but started delivering Amazon packages on Sundays in 2013. According to the OP article - his time there started before that. And it should be noted that the offices in question are in Amish Country so there should be no surprises that there are religious objections to working on a Sunday.

All of that said, I’m not sure if there’s a legitimate case here. In dissecting the OP article, the guy was hired sometime prior to 2013 as a part-time backup who only worked when a full time employee was absent. He was asked to start working every Sunday after USPS made their deal with Amazon in 2013. He declined to do that and moved to a more rural office that hadn’t yet adopted the program.

Eventually they did, he still refused to work Sundays and - this is key - the USPS took no adverse action against him for that. His complaint seems to be that there was a hostile work environment caused by other employees who didn’t want to work Sundays but had to fill in for him. So he quit six years later in 2019. So unless there’s more to this case than has been published in the article I don’t see any religious discrimination here by the USPS.
 
This is the worst road to go down, religious objection to conditions while voluntarily working for a company opens the flood gates to every functional operation for any business or government entity being at the will of one objector.
 
Some info

----

Title VII requires federal agencies, upon notice of a request, to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances conflict with work requirements, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship.

What is a religious accommodation?

A religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow an employee or applicant to practice his or her religion. The need for religious accommodation may arise where an individual's religious beliefs, observances or practices conflict with a specific task or requirement of the position or an application process. Accommodation requests often relate to work schedules, dress and grooming, or religious expression in the workplace. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

What is an undue hardship?

An agency may justify a refusal to accommodate an individual's religious beliefs or practices if the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would cause an undue hardship. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Undue hardship also may be shown if the request for an accommodation violates the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or job rights established through a seniority system. Undue hardship based on cost requires that the agency show more than a de minimis (minimal impact upon the agency's business) cost to the agency. The hardship upon the agency must be genuine and cannot be merely speculative.

www.dol.gov

Religious Discrimination and Accommodation in the Federal Workplace

www.dol.gov www.dol.gov
 
Airyaman said:
Unless I am missing something, Sunday postal deliveries are a new thing (in the last few years). If there were no Sunday deliveries when the employee was hired, then there was no original expectation of any. In that case, I would think there could be a religious exception. On the flip side, if Sunday deliveries did exist when the person was hired, then they would really have no excuse.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Business operational conditions are not stagnant and change over time. Businesses adapt to changing conditions, and unless there were a contract that specifically says something to the effect "the working conditions are guaranteed never to change over you entire career of the organization", then employers and employees adapt.

IIRC - at least around here - the Post Office Sunday deliveries are taking on a lot of "last mile" online retailer deliveries, such as Amazon. Conditions have changed in that online retailers exploded and a lot of their deliveries are through FedEx, UPS, etc. which was causing the USPS a loss of revenue. To adapt they entered agreements with some of the shipping companies to be paid for last mile deliveries improving the bottom line of the USPS.
.
.
.
Now with that said, one would also have to look at the location and size of the Postal Office where the worker is located. If they have plenty of staff and the individuals religious request could have been easily accommodated without undue hardship and the Supervisor was just being a dick, than the Supervisor was wrong. On the other hand if it was a rural post office and the amount of staff was limited and would have required (a) additional expense of hiring someone else, and/or (b) placed an undue burden on coworkers, then the refusal could be justified.

WW
 
NatMorton said:
The harder challenge is to get most postal workers to work Monday through Friday.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're just very religious and can't work so much.
 
NatMorton said:
Given the resources the US Postal Service has at its disposal, i.e. its ~$80b annual budget, and the fact that for most of its history it never deemed operating on Sundays to be important, it seems hard to believe they could defend the suit successfully claiming this one man's refusal to work on Sundays created an "undue burden."
Click to expand...
The USPS apparently has a contract with Amazon that requires Sunday delivery - that's where the Sunday requirement came from.

The larger issue may be one of staffing at smaller facilities - especially ones in heavily Christian areas where most of the employees would probably want Sunday off.

As well since this revisiting a previous SC decision - the one that put the "de minimis" standard in place the decision has consequences well beyond the Post Office.
 
SCOTUS has to balance wanting a theocracy versus kowtowing to big businesses here. Its two competing bits of judicial activism.
 
VySky said:
Will employee religious needs be met? I have mixed feelings on this. As an employer, you have a job to get done

And sometimes, that's on a Sunday.

If it were me, I wouldn't take a job that required I even remotely stand the chance of working on Sunday. However, will the religious needs of employees fall under the umbrella of 'reasonable accommodation'?
Click to expand...
It sounds like his employers tried to accommodate his needs. He wasn't willing to reciprocate.
VySky said:
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide under what circumstances businesses must accommodate the needs of religious employees.

A case before the justices Tuesday involves a Christian mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania. He was told that as part of his job he'd need to start delivering Amazon packages on Sundays. He declined, saying his Sundays are for church and family. U.S. Postal Service officials initially tried to get substitutes for the man’s shifts, but they couldn’t always. When he didn’t show, that meant more work for others. Ultimately, the man quit and sued for religious discrimination.

The case is the latest religious confrontation the high court has been asked to referee. In recent years, the court's 6-3 conservative majority has been particularly sensitive to the concerns of religious plaintiffs. That includes a ruling last year in which the court said a public high school football coach should be allowed to pray on the field after games. Another case the court is weighing this term involves a Christian graphic artist who wants to create wedding websites, but doesn't want to serve gay couples.
Click to expand...
Written contracts between employers and employees should be in place specifying any requirements and accommodations needed and agreed upon by both sides. That might help avoid situations like this.
Blue Dog said:
Ruling in favor of this worker will open a can of worms….
Click to expand...
Indeed. Give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile.
 
j brown's body said:
If the Court sides with the mail carrier, many, many more religious exemptions will come.

Will the Supreme Court open yet another Pandora's Box?

Maybe it's time to bring back blue laws.
Click to expand...
Those were state or local laws.
 
Gordy327 said:
It sounds like his employers tried to accommodate his needs. He wasn't willing to reciprocate.

Written contracts between employers and employees should be in place specifying any requirements and accommodations needed and agreed upon by both sides. That might help avoid situations like this.

Indeed. Give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile.
Click to expand...
The government is usually the one taking a mile. Time for citizens to have their turn.
 
American said:
The government is usually the one taking a mile. Time for citizens to have their turn.
Click to expand...
Is anyone being forced to work for the government? Government jobs can be lucrative-a set salary, generally set work hours and vacation time, benefits, ect. Not a bad deal actually.
 
Gordy327 said:
Is anyone being forced to work for the government? Government jobs can be lucrative-a set salary, generally set work hours and vacation time, benefits, ect. Not a bad deal actually.
Click to expand...
Would you rather he didn't work? That would help the economy, like the clowns who quit during Covid.
 
American said:
Would you rather he didn't work? That would help the economy, like the clowns who quit during Covid.
Click to expand...
It's not about what I want. It's about the job he was hired for. If he doesn't want you do it, he should quit, just like anyone else has the option to.
 
j brown's body said:
If the Court sides with the mail carrier, many, many more religious exemptions will come.

Will the Supreme Court open yet another Pandora's Box?

Maybe it's time to bring back blue laws.
Click to expand...
We should totally unironically bring back blue laws,

Norway has blue laws. In Norway commercial vehicles can’t even operate on the roads on Sunday. Grocery stores either close or have a tiny seperate section which sells only staple foods open for a few hours, all banks and government offices closed, only a small number of services open.

It’s really good and it creates an atmosphere of rest on Sunday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom