Supreme Court Rules Unanimously in Favor of Postal Worker in Landmark Religious Liberty Case

In a powerful 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Gerald Groff, a former postal worker from Pennsylvania, who claimed that the U.S. Postal Service violated his religious rights by requiring him to work on Sundays — a day he observes as the Sabbath.

The decision marks a significant moment for religious freedom in the workplace, overturning a decades-old standard and raising the bar for employers who seek to deny religious accommodations to their employees.

The Case

Gerald Groff worked as a substitute mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania. In 2013, the U.S. Postal Service began delivering Amazon packages on Sundays to keep up with e-commerce demand. When Groff refused to work Sundays due to his religious beliefs, the Postal Service initially tried to accommodate him. But over time, those accommodations became harder to manage. Eventually, Groff began receiving disciplinary action and ultimately resigned from his position.

He then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Postal Service failed to uphold federal protections for religious freedom under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Legal Question

At the center of the case was the interpretation of the term “undue hardship.” Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” on the business.

In 1977, a previous Supreme Court decision known as Trans World Airlines v. Hardison defined undue hardship as any accommodation that imposed “more than a de minimis cost” — a very low threshold. Over the years, courts used this minimal standard to justify denying many religious accommodation requests.

Groff’s legal team argued that this old standard was unfair and outdated. They urged the Court to adopt a more meaningful definition of “undue hardship” — one that required employers to prove a significant difficulty or expense before rejecting a religious accommodation.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Groff’s position and declared that the “de minimis” standard is not consistent with the actual language of Title VII. Instead, the Court ruled that an employer must prove that accommodating an employee’s religious practices would result in substantial increased costs or difficulty in the context of their specific business operations.

In their opinion, the justices emphasized that workplace accommodations should not be denied simply because they inconvenience other employees, unless that inconvenience clearly harms the overall functioning of the business.

The Court did not go so far as to adopt the more rigorous standard used in disability law, but it made clear that employers must do more than point to minor costs or inconveniences.

The Impact

This decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on workplaces across the country, especially for religious minorities who have long argued that the existing standard made it nearly impossible to get fair accommodations for religious observances, holidays, and practices.

Groff’s case will now return to the lower courts to be re-evaluated under this new, tougher standard. The ruling does not automatically grant him victory, but it sets the stage for a stronger case.

Reactions

Groff’s legal team and religious liberty advocates hailed the decision as a major victory for people of faith in the workplace. They believe it restores balance and fairness to a system that has, for decades, allowed employers to sidestep genuine religious concerns too easily.

Civil rights groups representing religious minorities — including Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu organizations — also applauded the decision, saying the old standard had often been used to deny requests for prayer breaks, religious attire, or time off for holidays.

However, not everyone welcomed the change. Some labor unions warned that expanded religious accommodations could create scheduling conflicts or lead to resentment among coworkers if certain employees receive more favorable schedules.

Despite those concerns, the ruling sends a clear message: religious practices must be treated with seriousness and respect in American workplaces.

Looking Ahead

Though the Court did not redefine the full extent of what counts as an “undue hardship,” it clearly raised the bar. Employers will now be required to provide stronger evidence if they wish to deny a religious accommodation — making it much harder to simply dismiss such requests.

In a time of growing debate around religious freedom, workplace rights, and government authority, this unanimous ruling may signal a renewed commitment from the Court to protect individual liberties in public and private spheres alike.