Employers should be generous with religious accommodations in the workplace, and coworkers should help out their peers who need some time off or require flexibility in their schedules.

The Supreme Court currently has under consideration a case brought by postal worker Gerald Groff, who wants an exemption from work on Sundays because of his Christian faith. The United States Postal Service originally granted his request not to work on Sundays, but later rescinded it.

One law professor is worried that the court may make it easier for employees to win religious accommodations and that this “burden” will be shifted onto other employees.

Baruch College professor Debbie Kaminer wrote in The Conversation that the court might “transform the role of faith in the workplace,” which could “elevat[e] the rights of religious workers at the expense of coworkers.”

Kaminer thinks that the court making it easier for employees to gain accommodations would “have the effect of dramatically limiting employee rights.”

She worries that employers “would likely shift the cost of accommodation onto coworkers — for example, requiring them to work … an undesirable weekend shift.” The employees will “bear the brunt of the increased religious accommodation requirement.”

Apparently lost on Kaminer is that it is “undesirable” for Groff to work a “weekend shift” due to his religious beliefs. But there are other flaws in her argument.

First, “coworkers” by definition are supposed to work together to achieve a common goal, which means pitching in to help one another finish an assignment and help the organization succeed.

Second, it is not just religious employees who need accommodations. Both maternity and paternity leave allow parents to have time off to spend with their children but require that other employees pick up the slack. But those same parents who are taking time off (insomuch as taking care of a screaming newborn is “time off”) probably pitched in when their coworkers were sick for a few days or took a vacation. This is the nature of the workforce, which Kaminer should understand since her employer annually gives her 20 sick days, four bereavement days, and Saturdays and Sundays off from work.

Finally, at least in this specific case, no one is really harmed if some post office workers do not work on Sundays. Groff was willing to pick up other shifts to cover some of the extra work, even though almost everyone existed fine without Sunday postal delivery for 150 years. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that no one could fill in for him every Sunday for a year. The people on Groff’s route would be OK if they did not get their Pizza Hut coupons or People magazine on Sunday, just like they are the other 11 days of the year that are postal holidays, or when they are away on vacation, or when a mail truck breaks down and a postal worker cannot finish a route.

Groff should have his time off on Sundays protected, and employers and employees should be willing to help each other out when someone needs a regular or unexpected break from work.

Employees get sick, they take time off for vacation, they need to take care of aging parents, or they develop temporary disabilities. A good organization will include employees coming together to help one another —  to help the company succeed and out of kindness for their peers. Organizations should promote a healthy sharing of burdens for the common good, and coworkers should look out for one another.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.