The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case, the court's ruling on which could result in expanded religious freedoms in the workplace.

In Groff v. DeJoy, Gerald Groff is a former U.S. Postal Service carrier who resigned after being assigned to work Sundays. Groff refused that schedule due to his religious faith. The justices wrestled with the facts of the case as it relates to Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, the foundational precedent describing religious exemptions in the workplace.

While no employee should use their religious faith to bully their employer into time off, the employer should also make reasonable accommodations within clear guidelines. The justices all seemed to agree that the rub between these two points — an employee’s religious beliefs and an employer’s accommodations — lay in determining just how much an employer must accommodate an employee and the context of the request.

When Groff first got a job at the Postal Service, he did so without any concerns. After all, the Postal Service didn’t originally deliver mail on Sundays. This later changed, though, when Amazon contracted with them to deliver packages. The small, rural Postal Service location where Groff operated granted multiple accommodations to him. Eventually, however, Groff was scheduled to work Sundays. After missing multiple Sunday shifts, Groff resigned and sued under Title VII – the federal law that makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee based on religion.

In Hardison, a case decided in 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that employers did not have to provide religious accommodations to employees if doing so resulted in even a minor cost to the employer. It was on this basis that the lower courts decided against Groff, determining that honoring Groff’s requests for Sabbath accommodations caused an "undue hardship" on the Postal Service. In oral arguments, attorneys for Groff argued the Hardison standard was problematic and vague and asked the Supreme Court to modify it, or, as it seemed at times, toss it out altogether.

Some justices, including Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, seemed to sympathize with corporations who would have to, in the name of religious accommodations, hire workers at "premium" wages or risk sinking morale among employees. On the other hand, the Supreme Court often leans heavily in favor of religious accommodations on the basis of the First Amendment, among other statutes, as Chief Justice John Roberts hinted.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed committed not to tossing out precedent or even belaboring the U.S. Postal Service’s particular reasoning for accommodating him, but to finding "common ground" between the two positions. At one point, when he pointed this out, Justice Kagan said she was glad they were "kumbaya-ing." The Supreme Court didn’t delve into the philosophical principles of rest, taking a religious Sabbath, or the fact that the Post Office only stumbled into this quandary when Amazon contracted them to work Sundays.

Religious accommodations at work can be tricky. Still, they should be made for people of sincere faith. The Supreme Court should modify the 50-year-old precedent, Hardison, and offer more specific guidance to employers and reassurance for religious employees.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She is an opinion columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.