High Court Delivers Unanimous Ruling in Landmark Religious Liberty Case

In a sweeping 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Gerald Groff, a Pennsylvania postal worker whose refusal to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays led to a legal battle over the boundaries of religious freedom in the workplace. The case, closely watched across the nation, redefines the extent to which employers must accommodate employees’ religious beliefs when they conflict with job requirements.

Groff, a devout Christian from Lancaster County, had worked diligently as a rural carrier associate for the U.S. Postal Service in Quarryville and Holtwood. But when the agency began Sunday deliveries for Amazon, Groff sought exemption, citing his observance of the Sabbath. His request was denied, and after facing disciplinary action, he turned to the courts to clarify whether his employer could compel him to work on his day of worship.

Represented by attorney Aaron Streett, Groff’s legal team urged the Court to overturn a decades-old precedent from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977). That ruling allowed employers to deny religious accommodations if they imposed more than a de minimis—or minimal—cost on business operations. Streett argued that the standard was far too lenient and had been misapplied by lower courts for nearly half a century, effectively forcing religious employees to choose between their faith and their jobs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would cause “undue hardship” to the business. Streett maintained that “undue hardship” must be interpreted in line with other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, meaning only accommodations that involve significant difficulty or expense should be denied.

Opposition came largely from postal unions, including the American Postal Workers Union, which warned that granting such exemptions could unfairly burden co-workers, especially when weekends are traditionally reserved for family and rest. In their brief to the Court, union representatives argued that time off on weekends should not be treated as a “special privilege” for religious employees.

Still, Groff’s case drew support from a wide array of religious organizations. Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu groups filed amicus briefs describing how the Hardison standard had long disadvantaged minority faiths. The Muslim Public Affairs Council wrote that the 1977 precedent had “forced devout employees to make an impossible daily choice between religious duty and livelihood,” urging the justices to restore fairness to workplace protections.

The Court’s unanimous opinion marks a major shift in how religious accommodation laws are interpreted. Legal scholars, including Chapman University law professor James Phillips, had anticipated that the case might bridge ideological divides among the justices. “This is one of those rare instances where both sides of the Court recognize the imbalance created by the prior precedent,” Phillips observed, noting that the ruling underscores the principle that personal faith should not come at the cost of one’s career.

The case also spotlights the evolution of the U.S. Postal Service’s operations. When the agency struck a deal with Amazon in 2013 to deliver packages on Sundays, the move boosted revenue but created conflicts for employees like Groff, whose religious observance prohibits Sunday labor.

Now, the Supreme Court has made it clear: employers cannot compel workers to violate deeply held religious beliefs for the sake of convenience or contract.

The implications of the decision are vast. Employers across industries—particularly those with nontraditional work schedules, such as retail and logistics—will need to revisit their accommodation policies to ensure compliance with the Court’s clarified standard. The ruling effectively dismantles the long-standing Hardison framework, demanding that businesses demonstrate a meaningful hardship before denying religious requests.

For Gerald Groff, the verdict represents more than a legal triumph—it’s a vindication of faith. “This ruling ensures that no one has to choose between their job and their beliefs,” his attorney said after the decision.

In reaffirming the fundamental right to religious liberty, the Supreme Court has reshaped the legal landscape for America’s workforce. The message from the justices is clear: respect for conscience and faith remains a cornerstone of the nation’s labor law—one that must be honored with more than minimal regard.