 |
| 6 of 9 SCOTUS Justices are politicly conservative (Harvard Gazette) |
Politically conservative values generally tend to reflect a more deferential approach towards religious rights while politically liberal values tend to be more favorable to secular humanistic rights. So that even as justices will claim to be even-handed when rendering decisions, their political biases - whether are on the left or the right - will surely influence them. That has proven to be the case in decisions by both liberal and conservative Courts when there was conflict between religious and secular rights.
For observant Jews, one of the great accomplishments of Orthodox Jewish advocacy groups was in protecting Jews from fired for refusing to work on Shabbos. This was especially significant when there were ‘Sunday Blue Laws’ back in the 50s. Although America was officially a secular country where freedom of religion was enshrined in the First Amendment, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans were Christians. Whose ‘day of rest’ is Sunday.
A lot of municipalities had laws against stores and businesses being open on Sunday. There was a lot of pressure to work on Saturday by businesses that needed more than a 5 day work week to meet their needs. That created a hardship for many Orthodox Jews.
That has become less of an issue since Sunday Blue Laws were themselves considered a violation of the separation clause of the First Amendment. But the issue has not gone away: In 1977 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TWA (Trans World Airlines) over a member of a Christian sect who sought Saturdays off. TWA claimed undue hardship as the reason for firing that employee. This is pretty much how things stand today
The problem is that undue hardship was never clearly defined.
Which brings us to today. Recently someone was disciplined for refusing to work on his Sabbath and quit his job. The claim by the employer was that his business would suffer undue hardship if employees refused to work on that day. From JTA:
Groff v. DeJoy involves a Pennsylvania mailman who sought accommodations after the U.S. Postal Service in 2013 started Sunday deliveries on behalf of Amazon. At first, Gerald Groff was able to work around Sunday deliveries, but as demand for the service grew, USPS disciplined him for declining Sunday shifts. He quit and sued. (Louis DeJoy is the postmaster general.)
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the post office, which is arguing that not being able to schedule a mail career to work Sunday shifts represents an undue hardship. Groff last month appealed to the Supreme Court, which has yet to say whether it will consider the case.
As noted in the article, this is an opportunity to revisit the issue of undue hardship and to better define it - with workarounds for employees whose religion forbids them from working on their Sabbath As it stands now the lack of any clear definition of undue hardship makes requiring work on those days almost arbitrary. Rendering any protection from being fired because of Sabbath observance almost meaningless. What is an undue hardship? It appears that currently an employer can define it any way he chooses
I am happy to report that even though the plaintiff is a Christian, the lawsuit is getting support from 2 of the largest Orthodox advocacy groups in the country:
The Orthodox Union joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church in one amicus brief. (The Adventists mark Sabbath on Saturdays). The Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, which represents a number of Orthodox groups, including Agudath Israel of America, spearheaded another amicus brief.
It’s nice to see Orthodox advocacy groups joining Christian advocacy groups fighting for the same cause – the religious rights off all Americans.
I believe this is a chance for the Supreme Court to reinforce religious rights - making life for observant Jewry a little bit easier. With a conservative court in place, I think we will see a positive outcome here. If they decide to take the case. I hope they will.
