Will Supreme Court allow workers to skip shifts for religious reasons?

[gohawks50]

Because of his principles he is unable to work on Sunday.

Most jobs don't have a signed contract.

USPS does have a contract.

2021-2024 APWU/USPS Collective Bargaining Agreement | American Postal Workers Union

2021-2024 APWU/USPS Collective Bargaining Agreement The official and final version of the 2021-2024 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Changes agreed to by the parties, from the previous CBA, are in bold type.

apwu.org

 

[ConvenientParking]

Observant Christians can't work for the post office no more because 'Mericans need their treats from Amazon.

 

[BelemNole]

The religious will cheer when this gets upheld, and then piss and moan about GenZ when places they like are closed all the time due to this.

 

[gohawks50]

If it gets me the day off I’ll witness that ass all day

That's why you don't want to choose Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate most holidays or events that honor people who aren’t Jesus. That includes birthdays, Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day and Halloween.

They also don’t celebrate religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter in the belief that these customs have pagan origins.

 

[Rifler]

Looks like the contract includes Sundays as available work days...

Section 2. Work Schedules
A. The employee’s service week shall be a calendar week beginning at 12:01 a.m. Saturday and ending at 12 midnight the following Friday
B. The employee’s service day is the calendar day on which the majority of work is scheduled. Where the work schedule is distributed evenly over two (2) calendar days, the service day is the calendar day on which such work schedule begin
C. The employee’s normal work week is five (5) service days, each consisting of eight (8) hours, within ten (10) consecutive hours, except as provided in Section 1 of this Article. As far as practicable the five (5) days shall be consecutive days within the service week.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

(IMHO) Religion wins on this. It seems to me that the Roberts court always defers to the hands of religion. I could be wrong though.

Generally agree but to many in the court, business is also a religion.

 

[Aardvark86]

If it gets me the day off I’ll witness that ass all day

that's just it. they're not that into days off.

 

[mnole03]

I'm torn.

For one, there should absolutely be other options for work scheduling, especially for a religious reason (applied equally for all religions).

Why? If there are two guys who deliver the mail, and one is devoutly Christian and the other is a devout Eagles fan, why should the Eagles fan have to work every Sunday?

 

[theiacowtipper]

I'm Agnostic. I'd have the same opinion no matter what the employee's sincerely held religious beliefs are.

And really, I'm not rooting for either side in this dispute. My hope is that a new Supreme Court ruling will create more clarity regarding the employer's duty to accommodate.

Why in the name of all that’s holy is that the job of scotus?

 

[Pete Malloy]

Religious accommodation is not carte blanche. Did he request the accommodation because he wants to go to church or did he request it because the religion forbids working on Sunday? The difference is huge in a situation like this.

Also "An employer is not required to accommodate at all costs," wrote a panel of judges from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. "Exempting Groff from working on Sundays caused more than a de minimis cost on USPS because it actually imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale."

I say he loses his appeal.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why? If there are two guys who deliver the mail, and one is devoutly Christian and the other is a devout Eagles fan, why should the Eagles fan have to work every Sunday?

Football fans...oddly for this country...aren't a protected class.

Of course, Eagles fans shouldn't be, anyway.

 

[The Tradition]

Why in the name of all that’s holy is that the job of scotus?

Seriously, Clark?

The law was passed in 1964. All the lawmakers who voted for it are dead. So, it's left to the courts to interpret what the law requires.

 

[The Tradition]

(IMHO) Religion wins on this. It seems to me that the Roberts court always defers to the hands of religion. I could be wrong though.

Well, religious freedom is only the VERY FIRST RIGHT in the Bill of Rights.

 

[mnole03]

Of course, Eagles fans shouldn't be, anyway.

An excellent point.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Well, religious freedom is only the VERY FIRST RIGHT in the Bill of Rights.

And?

 

[mnole03]

Religious accommodation is not carte blanche. Did he request the accommodation because he wants to go to church or did he request it because the religion forbids working on Sunday? The difference is huge in a situation like this.

Also "An employer is not required to accommodate at all costs," wrote a panel of judges from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. "Exempting Groff from working on Sundays caused more than a de minimis cost on USPS because it actually imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale."

I say he loses his appeal.

He’ll win. He’s Christian.

 

[The Tradition]

And?

And therefore it's important if we're concerned about freedom and liberty.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

And therefore it's important if we're concerned about freedom and liberty.

Concerned, yes. Do the bidding of, no.

 

[Aardvark86]

Concerned, yes. Do the bidding of, no.

I hope we could agree that one man’s concerned is another’s do the bidding of, and that’s why we have courts.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Observant Christians can't work for the post office no more because 'Mericans need their treats from Amazon.

You are not seeing the forest through the tree. This is way beyond the USPS. Basically anyone open Sunday.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Under the radar news item. . . This case was decided in favor of the employee in a unanimous decision.

Just from reading the cliff's notes.

Sotomayer & Jackson's concurring opinion said that the standard for religious exemption must be the same as the standard for complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That the employer must show a *significant* cost.

Opinion of the court and the rest of the justices was that the employer must show a *substantial* cost.

I'm honestly not sure what the difference is but I'm too lazy at this point to go read the opinions in full.

Either way I think the court got this one right. I would probably side actually towards Sotomayer and Jackson's opinion that the standard should be similar to the ADA. No need to hold religion to a higher standard than the ADA and no need to hold it to a lesser standard either.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Under the radar news item. . . This case was decided in favor of the employee in a unanimous decision.

Just from reading the cliff's notes.

Sotomayer & Jackson's concurring opinion said that the standard for religious exemption must be the same as the standard for complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That the employer must show a *significant* cost.

Opinion of the court and the rest of the justices was that the employer must show a *substantial* cost.

I'm honestly not sure what the difference is but I'm too lazy at this point to go read the opinions in full.

Either way I think the court got this one right. I would probably side actually towards Sotomayer and Jackson's opinion that the standard should be similar to the ADA. No need to hold religion to a higher standard than the ADA and no need to hold it to a lesser standard either.

I would not hold it to the standard of the ADA. Zombie worship deserves legal protection?

 

[theiacowtipper]

I would not hold it to the standard of the ADA. Zombie worship deserves legal protection?

Agreed. One needs an accommodation for their wants. Their beliefs. One wants an accommodation because they can’t work otherwise. Doesn’t seem to be equal levels.

 

[sadiehawkins]

Under the radar news item. . . This case was decided in favor of the employee in a unanimous decision.

Just from reading the cliff's notes.

Sotomayer & Jackson's concurring opinion said that the standard for religious exemption must be the same as the standard for complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That the employer must show a *significant* cost.

Opinion of the court and the rest of the justices was that the employer must show a *substantial* cost.

I'm honestly not sure what the difference is but I'm too lazy at this point to go read the opinions in full.

Either way I think the court got this one right. I would probably side actually towards Sotomayer and Jackson's opinion that the standard should be similar to the ADA. No need to hold religion to a higher standard than the ADA and no need to hold it to a lesser standard either.

What about atheist? Where is there God-given right to take time off as there counter parts? When you give aan exemption for one you must give it for all.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I would not hold it to the standard of the ADA. Zombie worship deserves legal protection?

You may mock it but religious freedom was enshrined in the constitution. We're all allowed to believe what we want and we have protections for that belief.

What about atheist? Where is there God-given right to take time off as there counter parts? When you give aan exemption for one you must give it for all.

If your lack of belief in God morally requires you to do something or not do something.

 

[JRHawk2003]

You may mock it but religious freedom was enshrined in the constitution. We're all allowed to believe what we want and we have protections for that belief.



If your lack of belief in God morally requires you to do something or not do something.

Oh no. I appreciate the fact that I have freedom from religion.

 

[theiacowtipper]

You may mock it but religious freedom was enshrined in the constitution. We're all allowed to believe what we want and we have protections for that belief.



If your lack of belief in God morally requires you to do something or not do something.

Religious freedom is in the constitution. So is speech. The Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of exercising that freedom of speech in the workplace. Why should it protect you from exercising your freedom to practice religion?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Religious freedom is in the constitution. So is speech. The Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of exercising that freedom of speech in the workplace. Why should it protect you from exercising your freedom to practice religion?

If there are consequences for even the most benign freedom of speech or freedom of religion then those rights defacto do not exist.

For example the law protects you if you attempt to use your freedom of speech to convince your co-workers to unionize.

 

[alaskanseminole]

This guy is mad the USPS made him work Sundays because they contracted with Amazon. Boo-hoo.

If he gets his way. It would create a nightmare for employers.

But with this clown car court, I would not rule it out.

Sabbath Showdown

While I LOVE the concept of a Sabbath nationally, it's really not for religious reasons. I think America deserves a day to just chill out and rest/recharge.

That said, I've worked every holiday there is and a crap ton of Sundays and, as a Christian, I don't recall complaining about it. I guess that's the military life for ya.

 

[sadiehawkins]

Why should your job requirement allow u time off for religion? What the makes religion any better than your kids basketball game or soccer match. This religous crap is part of the problem in the USA.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Why should your job requirement allow u time off for religion? What the makes religion any better than your kids basketball game or soccer match. This religous crap is part of the problem in the USA.

Same reason it should allow an accommodation for disabilities and other things. Religion is often central who a person is. Practicing their religion is central to who they are and that should be protected to some extent.

 

[Aardvark86]

Why should your job requirement allow u time off for religion? What the makes religion any better than your kids basketball game or soccer match. This religous crap is part of the problem in the USA.

Well, it is after all an explicit constitutional value. Quibble if you will about whether it ought to flow down to private employers receiving federal funds via Title VI and RFRA.

 

[Aardvark86]

Oh no. I appreciate the fact that I have freedom from religion.

do you guys have holidays?

 

[JRHawk2003]

do you guys have holidays?

What guys?

 

[Aardvark86]

What guys?

the freedom from religion krue

 

[JRHawk2003]

the freedom from religion krue

I will take whatever paid holiday someone wants to give me. I dont even get all the secular federal holidays off.

 

[Aardvark86]

I will take whatever paid holiday someone wants to give me. I dont even get all the secular federal holidays off.

yeah, i hear you. my organization is global, and so they started chopping off us holidays so we could theoretically be consistent with all of the euros who say that "it is not possible, i will be on holiday" every time you ask for something in August.

 

[JRHawk2003]

yeah, i hear you. my organization is global, and so they started chopping off us holidays so we could theoretically be consistent with all of the euros who say that "it is not possible, i will be on holiday" every time you ask for something in August.

I was recently able to negotiate for more time off. I am very pleased with that.

Also, I am not an atheist. I am just not a proponent of organized religion. Specifically the Catholic Church in which I was brought up.

 

[Aardvark86]

I was recently able to negotiate for more time off. I am very pleased with that.

Also, I am not an atheist. I am just not a proponent of organized religion. Specifically the Catholic Church in which I was brought up.

no worries, we're just havin' fun.

 

[sober_teacher]

Same reason it should allow an accommodation for disabilities and other things. Religion is often central who a person is. Practicing their religion is central to who they are and that should be protected to some extent.

Well, it is after all an explicit constitutional value. Quibble if you will about whether it ought to flow down to private employers receiving federal funds via Title VI and RFRA.

I don’t have an issue with getting high holy days off. Disagree that sundays should be included. Rare is the church that doesn’t have services on other days of the week so it’s not like Sunday is the sole opportunity this guy would have to attend mass.