Religious employees should be watching the case of Groff v. DeJoy closely to see whether the Supreme Court will restore religious freedom to the workplace.

It may be rare for religious employees to have conflicts between their jobs and their faith, but it happens with enough frequency that in 1972, Congress passed broad protections for religious employees. These protections fall under what is known as Title VII. Over the past five decades, however, courts watered those broad protections down. This has meant that religious employees are often now on the defensive when it comes to upholding their civil rights in the workplace.

Following the Supreme Court’s misstep in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, judges began to undermine the protections of Title VII for religious employees. Employers may refuse an employee’s religious accommodation request if doing so would present a more than "de minimis" burden. If it were "just a little bit" of a burden for an employer, such as schedule swaps or employee morale, to accommodate one of the most central things to the human experience, religion, then the courts have declared that an employer does not have to accommodate.

According to the plain language of Title VII, an employer must provide an accommodation to an employee’s religion "unless an employer demonstrates" that doing so presents an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business." That "undue hardship" standard is as familiar as it is workable because we see it in other places of federal law. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires accommodating those with disabilities unless doing so would present an employer with an "undue hardship." By law, accommodations may, in fact, impose hardship upon a business, even a quite costly hardship. But unless that hardship is "undue," federal law requires an employer to accommodate its disabled employee.

Congress clearly intended that same standard to apply to religious employees in Title VII. If it had applied, Gerald Groff, whom we represent, would still have a job.

Groff chose to work as a postal carrier in rural Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It was a good career for Groff since the Postal Service did not provide Sunday delivery when he started. That’s important to Groff because he believes in obeying the fourth of the Ten Commandments, honoring the Lord’s Day by avoiding the labors of the world. When Amazon contracted with the Postal Service to have its carriers deliver on Sundays, things changed. At first, it was no problem. Gerald agreed to work every holiday so others could get overtime pay for work on Sundays instead. Then, the Postal Service changed its mind. Rather than respect his religious beliefs, Postal Service officials chose to make an example out of him by repeatedly punishing him and making his work life so miserable it was quit or be fired.

The postmaster admitted under oath that accommodating Groff was not an undue hardship but still refused to do so. Was it an undue hardship for the Postal Service to accommodate Groff? No. Many wanted the overtime pay for Sunday work. Surely an employer the size of the Postal Service could, and at one time did, find a way to accommodate a single employee’s religious exercise.

The courts no longer demand that cooperative spirit, but they should. Returning Title VII’s focus to "undue hardship" to the business motivates everyone from the boardroom to the mailroom to find a solution that works for that business as a whole.

Jeremy Dys is senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. First Liberty represents Groff.  Learn more at FirstLiberty.org.