Religious-Liberty-Annual-Report

V – Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court S trictly speaking, the Supreme Court only heard one case on religious freedom in 2023: Groff v. DeJoy , which concerned rights to accommodations for reli gious exercise in the workplace. But the decision of the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis does impact reli gious freedom as well. However, the Court declined to hear another case with religious liberty implications, Tingley v. Ferguson , which leaves in place a ruling up holding a state law that forbids so-called conversion therapy for minors. hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s coworkers rather than the business itself. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion did not ex plicitly overrule Hardison but clarified that the appro priate interpretation of the “undue hardship” standard is whether the employer would incur “substantial in creased costs in relation to the conduct of its partic ular business.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence argued that burdens on coworkers can generate such costs. A. Groff v. DeJoy (U.S. No. 22-174)

B. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (U.S. No. 21-476)

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Gerald Groff, a postal worker who observes Sunday Sabbath as part of his Christian faith. 37 When his office began Sunday deliveries, it failed to accommodate his unavailability on Sundays, and subjected him to progressive disci pline until, on the brink of termination, Groff resigned and sued the U.S. Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious exercise. However, the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison had been widely inter preted by lower courts to mean that employers need not make such accommodations if doing so would im pose more than a de minimis hardship on the employer. This insufficient standard has largely gutted the pro tections that Title VII provides for religious employees. The case presented two questions to the Court: first, whether the Court should disapprove the more than- de-minimis -cost test for refusing Title VII reli gious accommodations stated in Hardison ; and, sec ond, whether an employer may demonstrate “undue When his office began Sunday deliveries, it failed to accommodate his unavailability on Sundays, and subjected him to progressive discipline.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado, who wished to expand her business to include designing wedding websites. 38 Because she holds a religious belief that marriage is reserved for the union of one man and one woman, she sought a pre-enforcement determination from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission of her desire to say on her business’s website that she will only design websites for such marriages. The commission said no, that to do so would violate state nondiscrimination law. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that

AdobeStock

28