Meet Connor Dorsey of Mississippi. Dorsey, a devout Catholic, is considering filing a suit against Amazon for denying him a religious accommodation that would allow him to observe the Sabbath, Holy Days of Obligation, and refrain from laboring on Sundays. His current schedule as an L5 Area Manager is what is called “Back Half Nights.” It goes from Wednesday through Saturday, and/or Thursday through Saturday/Sunday with overnight hours from 10:00 pm to 5:00 am; this equates to four days and 10 hours per day shift. Dorsey has requested numerous times to be switched to a “Back Half Days” schedule, which would allow him to have off Sundays. Despite the position being open and Dorsey fitting the job description, a Human Resources manager told him, “If we set that precedent [granting accommodations], then we’ll have to grant those requests any time we receive them.” (First Liberty Institute) That same HR manager also told Dorsey to “find a job that works out for his personal situation.” (First Liberty Dorsey Demand Letter) Dorsey’s complaint was emailed to Amazon by First Liberty Institute on April 1st, 2026, with a response deadline of April 15th; to my knowledge, Amazon has not responded.
This case questions the precedents on the Free Exercise Clause set by numerous cases, including Sherbert v. Verner. Sherbert was a case in which the plaintiff, Adeil Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was fired from her job in South Carolina after refusing to work on her Sabbath Day, Saturday. The Employment Security Commission denied her unemployment benefits because of her refusal to work on her Sabbath. Interestingly, South Carolina law held that employers were not allowed to require work on Sundays. Another case similar to Sherbert is Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida. The plaintiff, also a Seventh-day Adventist, informed her employer that because of her sincerely held religious beliefs, she would not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday because it was her Sabbath day. Her employer then dismissed her, and consequently, Hobbie filed for unemployment compensation. Her compensation was denied.
In both Sherbert and Hobbie, the Supreme Court held that both cases violated the Free Exercise Clause and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Sherbert’s outcome created the Sherbert test and set the precedent that a substantial burden cannot be placed on someone, and impede the free exercise of their religion. Hobbie set the standard that a state cannot deny unemployment compensation to someone dismissed because of religious conflicts with their employer.
More recently, in Groff v. DeJoy, Groff, a Christian USPS worker, was fired after refusing to work Sundays because of his religious beliefs. After being scheduled on Sundays, Groff and USPS would fail to find coverage, and Groff would not work. After being fired, he sued USPS for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating that the company failed to reasonably accommodate his religion because the shift swaps were unsuccessful and did not solve the conflict. Title VII, in section A, states that “All personnel actions affecting employees…in the United States Postal Service…shall be made free from any discrimination based on…religion…” (Department of Labor) Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religion unless it would cause “undue hardship.” The Court ruled in favor of Groff because USPS did not demonstrate a substantial burden, or substantial increased costs, by granting his accommodation requests.
Dorsey’s case relies on the precedents set in other cases, specifically concerning the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the view of First Liberty Institute and Dorsey, Amazon is required to grant his religious accommodation, unless it can prove that doing so would cause substantial increased costs. Despite multiple attempts at solutions by Dorsey, Amazon has ignored his requests in addition to scheduling him this past Easter Sunday. Due to instances like this, Dorsey has had to use numerous PTO days; he has taken one every Sunday since January 19th, 2026.
My intuition in this case is that Amazon will be very unlikely to show any undue hardship, like in Groff, because of Dorsey’s absences on Sundays. His PTO days have been approved every Sunday for multiple months, and he has not faced any disciplinary actions for taking off every week. In addition, Amazon is the second-largest private employer in the country, and as a private employer, subject to scrutiny under Title VII. Amazon has clearly demonstrated knowledge of Dorsey’s sincerely held religious beliefs through multiple meetings with HR. I believe that it is unconstitutional for Amazon to place a substantial burden on Dorsey by giving him no other solution besides draining his PTO days and denying him the free exercise of his religion. Denying him these rights would overturn all three cases described: Sherbert, Hobbie, and Groff. This case has not yet made it to court, and I am curious to see what Amazon’s defense is.
https://firstliberty.org/cases/connor-dorsey/#simple1
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/136/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-174
No comments:
Post a Comment