This from Jeff Childers. Even more so than the decision to end “ffirmative Action” Policies in Universities…this one is a BIG

The U.S. Supreme Court increased Americans’ religions protections in a key decision this week that overturned long-standing Title VII law. Fox News ran its story on the decision headlined, “Supreme Court Hands Religious Freedom Win To Postal Worker Who Refused To Work On Sunday.”

Postman Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian and told his bosses at the USPS that he could not work on Sunday because he believes the Sabbath should be devoted to worship and rest. His bosses predictably initiated a progressive-discipline purge of the religious postal carrier until things got so difficult that he was forced to resign.

Litigation ensued and went all the way up.

In a unanimous 9-0 ruling reversing a progressive 1977 decision, the Supreme Court tightened Title VII requirements on employers, making it abundantly clear they must work hard to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.

Many of you are now familiar with the previous murky “undue hardship” standard, having just danced with it in relation to the jab mandates. After this week’s decision, employers may only deny a religious accommodation by showing that it would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Not just increased costs, but “substantial” increased costs.

Also significantly, the Court clarified that any hardships caused to co-workers are irrelevant, unless those co-worker hardships go on to impair the conduct of the business.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how an employee’s coworkers feel about the employee’s religious beliefs. Here’s how it played out in the Groff decision:

Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.
To give you an idea of the significance of this ruling, had the new decision been in play two years ago, it is likely there would have been NO jab mandates at all. I couldn’t begin to say how many times we sent letters on behalf of employees of all kinds — pilots and stewardesses, salespeople, pharma VPs, surgeons, executives, you name it — after the employers generically claimed that accommodating a jab exemption would be an “undue hardship.”

Unlike during the pandemic, now employers won’t be able wave their hands about undue hardship without giving a detailed explanation of exactly HOW an accommodation would cause undue hardship.

In another example from a current case, I am advising a regular C&C reader and executive who is navigating a harrowing Human Resources investigation merely for emailing two bible verses to other employees. This decision will be very helpful for my client’s case.

Somebody please explain to me how a virus caused the Republicans and democrats to shift places with regard to employee rights. Historically the democrat party called itself the “party of the worker.” The pandemic has completely reversed that. The democrats are now the party of big corporations and rights-less employees.

Isn’t that something?

……

Yes It sure is !