The United States Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in favor of a Pennsylvania postal worker, marking a major moment in the ongoing debate over religious liberty and workplace accommodation laws. The case centers on Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier who argued that the U.S. Postal Service failed to respect his religious commitment to observing Sunday as the Sabbath.

Groff, who worked as a rural carrier associate in Lancaster County, frequently filled in for other employees, including on weekends. His responsibilities grew more complicated in 2013 after the Postal Service reached a deal with Amazon to introduce Sunday deliveries as part of an effort to boost revenue. The arrangement soon put Groff in conflict with his religious beliefs, as he refused to work on Sundays and began seeking accommodation from his employer.

Represented by attorney Aaron Streett, Groff asked the Supreme Court to reassess a decades-old legal standard governing religious accommodations in the workplace. Streett argued in April that a 1977 ruling—Trans World Airlines v. Hardison—had long allowed employers to deny accommodations too easily. That ruling interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean businesses must accommodate religious beliefs unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.” However, the Court’s interpretation at the time defined such hardship as anything causing “more than a de minimis cost” to the employer, a definition many critics have called vague and too lenient toward management.

In its 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the previous understanding of “undue hardship,” signaling that the threshold should be higher than the minimal standard established more than four decades ago. While the Court did not completely overturn Hardison, it clarified that employers must now demonstrate a substantial burden—not merely a minimal inconvenience—before refusing a religious accommodation.

Streett welcomed the decision, arguing that the de minimis test had been misused by lower courts to routinely deny the requests of religious employees. He suggested that other federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), already provide a stronger and more consistent understanding of what constitutes an undue hardship, and that Title VII should be interpreted in a similar way.

The dispute has drawn wide attention due to its potential impact on workers across many faiths. Organizations representing religious minorities—including Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu advocacy groups—submitted briefs urging the Court to strengthen protections. Many of them argued that the Hardison standard disproportionately affected their communities, which often observe religious practices uncommon in mainstream schedules.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council, for example, told the Court that the existing standard forced many believers to choose between “religious duty and livelihood,” a dilemma that has persisted for decades. They, along with several other groups, pressed for a clearer and more protective rule that would ensure workers with sincere religious observances are not unfairly penalized.

At the same time, unions representing postal workers raised concerns about the broader consequences of the case. The American Postal Workers Union emphasized that granting exemptions for Sunday work could shift burdens onto other employees. They noted that weekends represent critical time for families and individuals of all backgrounds, not solely those with religious obligations. According to their brief, treating days off as a privilege for religious workers alone could create tension in workplaces where schedules are already stretched thin.

Despite these concerns, legal observers predicted the Court might issue a broad ruling favorable to Groff. James Phillips, a law professor at Chapman University in California, told reporters that the alignment of both conservative and liberal justices on religious liberty issues made a unanimous decision likely. In his view, Groff’s case represented a rare area of agreement between the Court’s ideological wings.

Groff’s situation reflects the broader changes the Postal Service has undergone in recent years. As package delivery became central to its business, weekend work expanded and flexibility declined. For Groff, this shift eventually led to disciplinary actions for declining Sunday assignments. After several years of conflict, he ultimately resigned, which prompted his lawsuit alleging that the Postal Service had failed to reasonably accommodate his faith.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant development for workers seeking religious accommodation nationwide. By raising the standard for what qualifies as an undue hardship, the Court has created a path for stronger legal protections and more consistent expectations for employers. The decision will likely influence future cases involving Sabbath observance, prayer breaks, dress codes, and other religious practices in workplaces across the country.