Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Gerald Groff v. DeJoy

Gerald Groff was an employee at the Quarryville Post Office for the USPS, he then transferred to the Paradise Post office as a Rural Carrier Associate in 2012. Groff was hired in this new position as an RCA, and this position means that the carrier must be able to work depending on the office, must be able to work weekends, and RCAs are not guaranteed a specific schedule based on needs. In 2016 this USPS office signed a contract with Amazon, stating that packages must be delivered on Sundays as well. Up until this time everything was working out, Groff had negotiated with his postmaster to make sure he had Sunday’s off as he identifies as an evangelical Christian and needs Sundays off for his Sunday Sabbath. However, once the Quarryville station signed with amazon Patricia, Groff’s postmaster, told him that she could no longer give him all Sundays off as they have peak times. Groff asked to be relocated to the Holtwood station, which had not yet signed a contract with Amazon. Brian Hess was Groff’s new postmaster and he knew that groff had moved to avoid Sunday delivery, but no one ever promised Groff all Sundays off. In 2017 Holtwood post office signed with Amazona and Groff would be required to work on Sundays. Management gave Groff an accommodation, he could find someone to cover his Sunday shifts or show up late on Sundays once his service was over. In May of 2018 Groff had missed 24 scheduled Sundays. Before facing termination due to 24 work absences, Groff decided to resign and sue the post office for refusing to have religious accommodations under the first amendment free exercise and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.  

First Groff sued under a federal court stating that the post office did not offer religious accomodations, including an Evangelical’s Sunday Sabbath. The federal court ruled for the Postal Service Office, then Groff appealed to the 3rd circuit where the ruling also favored the Post Office. Groff argued that exempting him from Sunday Work would have a more than de minimis cost on USPS. Groff has appealed to the Supreme Court and is holding on to a response.


I think that USPS should exempt Groff from working on Sundays even though he does not qualify due to his position, but I feel like his first amendment free exercise right is being violated because in this company RCA’s do not have the position to have a flexible schedule yet higher positions do; also Sunday Sabbath is not something Groff all of the sudden made up, he has been transferring jobs constantly and requested several times accommodations, therefore the sincerity is truthful. I think that stating the harm that his Sunday Sabbath has on USPS is unreasonable, and the fact that Groff had Sundays off before USPS signed with Amazon means that it is possible to make his accommodations happen, but USPS is putting their profits first before their employees.

6 comments:

Angie P said...

In this case, I agree with the court and I do not think this is a violation of Groff's 1st Amendment right to Free Exercise. An accommodation is made for Groff to observe Sundays as the Sabbath day. When the Hollywood station signed with Amazon, they said that he does not have to work Sundays as long as he gets a cover, or he can come after he attends church on Sunday. When Groff moved to the Hollywood station, he knew he was not guaranteed to have Sundays off, but moved anyway. I think that RCA's not being able to have a flexible schedule is a neutral policy. They are still allowing him to take off and practice his religion, as long as he can find someone else to work that day.

M. Kjeldgaard said...

I agree with the court's potions that this does not violate his free exercise of religion. They gave him options such as coming into work late or finding a cover. The rules are neutral that this position requires employees to work when they are needed and aren’t guaranteed days off. He was informed of this policy before he took on the new job and if working on Sunday was such an issue for him he shouldn’t have taken it. This policy is not discriminatory because they are forcing everyone to work when needed and even gave him alternatives so that he could attend mass. If he chose to not get a cover and not show up even after mass ended that's on him. Religious freedom of exercise grants you the right to participate in any religion you believe and also to practice those beliefs but part of holding a job means one needs to be there. UPS has been more than accommodating toward his religious practice and the law does not violate neutrality, it doesn't prevent him from practicing as he still can attend mass, and in order for a company to operate the employees need to be there. They didn’t tell him he is being forced to work every Sunday, rather that it’s a busy time and he needs to find a cover to come in late and even let him transfer to a different facility. Every other worker is held to the same standard that they must show up for shifts and violating that 24 times demonstrates the first the leniency toward understanding his religious beliefs as most people would not be granted that. The company has a interest to operate and Mr. Groff has an interest to practice his religion and in this case the only interest being violated is that of UPS.

Amanda Kalaydjian said...

I do wonder whether or not Groff initially sought out the position of postman because of the UPS policy to not ship on Sundays. I think this would add even greater strength to the argument that his faith is sincere. What right would the UPS have to deny his choice not to work on Sunday's due to his religion, when the UPS observes Christmas by closing. This is a government organization which closes for a Christian holiday--why would they not make this exception for a Christian employee? This would mean that the government is in fact acting against their own previous demonstrated policy.

Chloe S. said...

Although I do not personally like how this has impacted Groff, I am inclined to still agree with the court's ruling. The rules do appear to be neutral for all employees to work without the guarantee of days off. These rules are not specifically discriminatory against Groff or his religion as they do apply to everyone and the requirement for everyone to work when needed. It also seems that the USPS service he was working for made numerous attempts to be accommodating for Groff, stating that he would be able to come into work late as well as being able to find someone to cover for him. The problem doesn't seem to be with the company itself but rather the requirements of the job separately. Because every worker is being held to the same standard, it is not a question of neutrality or if it violates his First Amendment rights, but rather could he have taken proactive steps to make sure he would be able to practice his religion as well as still keeping his job.

Emma S said...

Nice Post! This is an extremely unfortunate situation because Groff originally had a job where he did not have to work on Sundays, and after Amazon got involved he then needed too. In terms of constitutional law I would have to agree with the decision of the court. I understand where you are coming from and I agree from a moral stance, but in my opinion Groffs First Amendment rights are not being violated. One of your arguments is in regard to sincerity, however in this situation I do not think the sincerity is being questioned. Allowing Groff to take Sundays off would open a door to several others and set a precedent. Then the sincerity of Sabbath Sunday and taking time off from work for religious reasons could be put into question if that was to happen. The ruling is facially neutral and allows for all employees to be treated the same. Groff is still able to exercise his religion and take part in Sabbath, however he also has an obligation to his company that he needs to uphold.

Jillian Kimberling said...

I think that because Groff was aware of the company's policy and because they allowed him exemptions so as to be able to practice his religion, the court's ruling is valid. The policy applies to everyone, and if he was vehemently opposed to working on Sundays, he should not have taken a job in which there is not flexibility for this. Additionally, he was given exemptions to allow him to still attend mass on Sundays, yet he missed work and violated the policy anyway