The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that Lancaster County mail carrier Gerald Groff was exercising his religious rights when he said he didn’t want to work on Sundays because it is a day of rest and a holy day. The decision is seen as making it easier for employees to seek religious accommodations from their employers.

Groff’s case actually was ordered back to a federal appeals court for further litigation and as LNP investigative reporter Brett Sholtis told us on The Spark Thursday, "We actually had a unanimous ruling where we had the most liberal justices on the court agreeing more or less. And this was one case where everyone agreed on one thing, which was that they needed to clarify a rule around a previous ruling that happened in 1977."

That means Groff's case isn't in the clear just yet since the Court clarified what religious accommodations an employer must provide,"(In 1977) They interpreted undue hardship to mean anything that was more than a minimum inconvenience. So, that basically gave employers a real broad slate to say, no, this is inconveniencing me because it's going to cost money or it's going to cost time or are going to cost workers. And so as a result like that was it was for the longest time in favor of employers. Well, now, after the Groff ruling, this definition is changed from a minimum standard to a substantial hardship. So now it's not enough for an employer to merely say, well, this is going to cause me an inconvenience. And so we're not going to meet your accommodation."

Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.