The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of former postal worker Gerald Groff has become a turning point in how workplaces across the United States handle religious accommodation. For years, Groff had struggled within a system built on an old legal standard that allowed employers to deny religious requests for even small inconveniences. His case reached the highest court, and the resulting decision has already started reshaping policies, expectations, and conversations nationwide.
Groff accepted a job with the U.S. Postal Service in rural Pennsylvania because it allowed him to keep Sundays free for worship and rest. That changed when the Postal Service began delivering packages for Amazon seven days a week. Suddenly, Sunday shifts became part of the job. Groff declined, believing that honoring his day of worship was a personal commitment he could not compromise. As he continued to refuse Sunday work, he faced disciplinary actions, strained relationships with coworkers, and increasing pressure that eventually led him to resign. Through it all, he stood by his belief that his job should not force him to abandon his religious practices.
For decades, the rules governing religious accommodations came from a 1977 Supreme Court case called TWA v. Hardison. That decision allowed employers to reject accommodation requests if they caused anything more than a minimal inconvenience. In practice, this meant that even small adjustments—like adjusting a schedule or swapping a shift—could be denied without much consideration. For nearly half a century, this standard shaped workplace policies across the country and left many employees with little protection when their religious practices conflicted with job duties.
Continue reading on the next page…