Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Protections for Religious Employees

In a major decision that could reshape workplace policies nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania postal worker who said his employer failed to respect his religious observance. The ruling strengthens the rights of employees seeking accommodations for their faith and raises the standard for when employers can deny such requests.

The case, Groff v. DeJoy, involved Gerald Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service mail carrier and devout Christian who argued that delivering packages on Sundays violated his religious beliefs. For Groff, Sunday is a sacred day of rest and worship, and he asked to be exempted from Sunday deliveries. When the Postal Service began handling Amazon packages that required Sunday routes, Groff repeatedly sought accommodations but faced disciplinary action when he declined to work on those days.

Represented by attorney Aaron Streett, Groff appealed through the courts, contending that existing legal standards made it far too easy for employers to reject religious accommodations. He urged the Supreme Court to revisit a decades-old precedent that had long defined the limits of employers’ obligations under federal law.

Revisiting a 1977 Precedent

Since 1977, American businesses have relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which held that employers could deny religious accommodations that imposed “more than a de minimis cost” on their operations. In practice, this low threshold allowed many employers to reject employee requests for schedule changes, prayer breaks, or religious attire with minimal justification.

In its new ruling, the Court found that this standard was inconsistent with the intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Samuel Alito clarified that an employer must now demonstrate that a requested accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” or pose a genuine “undue hardship” to the business.

Alito emphasized that trivial or minor inconveniences are not enough to deny a worker’s religious request. “The law does not permit trivial burdens on religious exercise to be used as an excuse for denying accommodations,” he wrote, underscoring that federal protections must be interpreted in a way that respects both the employee’s faith and the employer’s legitimate needs.

Balancing Rights in the Workplace

The decision, supported by all nine justices, represents a significant shift in how courts will evaluate religious accommodation cases. It brings Title VII’s standard more in line with other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which already uses a higher bar for what constitutes an undue hardship.

However, the ruling also reignited debate over how far employers should go to accommodate religious practices. Labor unions, including the American Postal Workers Union, cautioned that the decision could have unintended consequences for employees who do not seek such accommodations. The union argued that when one worker is excused from weekend or holiday shifts for religious reasons, others often must cover the workload, potentially creating friction among staff.

“A day off is not the special privilege of the religious,” the union wrote in its brief, noting that weekends are important to many employees for family, rest, and community life. Union leaders warned that employers could face challenges in maintaining fairness and morale while complying with the strengthened legal standard.

Far-Reaching Consequences

Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s ruling could have sweeping implications for workplaces across the United States. Employers will now need to carefully reassess their policies on scheduling, dress codes, and religious observance to ensure compliance with the higher threshold.

Requests for time off to observe holy days, wear specific religious attire, or engage in prayer during work hours may all receive closer consideration. Companies that previously denied such accommodations under the old “de minimis” rule may now be required to make greater efforts to find workable solutions.

Supporters of the decision see it as a landmark victory for religious freedom. They argue that it restores fairness for people of faith who have long faced difficult choices between following their beliefs and keeping their jobs. Critics, meanwhile, worry that the new standard could lead to increased litigation and operational challenges, particularly in industries with tight staffing or mandatory scheduling needs.

Groff’s Response and Legacy

After years of legal battles and personal sacrifice, Gerald Groff said the ruling validated his commitment to both faith and fairness. “No American should have to sacrifice their faith in order to keep their job,” he said in a statement. Groff resigned from the Postal Service after repeated disciplinary actions related to his refusal to work Sundays, but his case has now set a precedent that will guide future disputes over religious accommodation.

The unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy marks one of the most significant religious liberty rulings in recent decades. By redefining what counts as an undue hardship, the Supreme Court has effectively expanded protections for religious employees and reshaped the balance between faith and the modern workplace.