Is Goff in an at-will State?
[pedant]
Groff is the correct spelling.
[/pedant]
He is likely a member of the APWU, by the way.
To play devil’s advocate, a win for Groff allows every other Christian employee (or even non-Christian employees) to claim to have been “reborn” and found a belief that violating the Sabbath is a terrible thing.
Sunday is a pretty popular day to want to have off even in secular circles (most other family/kids and friends are off and you can spend time with them, football games, lazy afternoon naps, etc.)
It might be a religious thing for Mr. Groff but for almost everyone else there’s a more important reason.
Folks don’t want to work on Sunday because it’s the weekend, not because of church.
Consequently, even Jesus has to work Sundays until he accrues enough seniority.
It doesn’t really matter in this case. Religious beliefs are protected at the federal level and this case is about whether or not Groff’s accommodation request was reasonable.
You serve a truly loving god.
Hallelujah!
Postal workers are paid extra for working sundays so I doubt many would push for this.
The federal lawsuit claims Groff worked “flexibly” to accommodate his convictions by offering to pick up holiday, evening and Saturday hours that others did not want to work.
Groff, who worked for the Postal Service for seven years, said the agency began enforcing a no-exceptions Sunday policy on him and “needlessly disciplined him,” according to a statement released by his defense Monday. The disciplinary methods included suspensions as long as two weeks.
That would make it seam he worked for some years without having to work Sunday and the PO was ok with it. But at some point wanted to change the working days.
Also makes me wonder if Groff was being eased out of the business due to some other issue. That’s quite a common way of getting rid of an unwanted employee - bring up attendance issues, or even make maintaining good attendance near impossible.
Again, we’re only hearing one side of the story here.
From above, according to the USPS, there had been a co-worker willing to take the Sunday shifts Groff was assigned. The USPS hadn’t been making exceptions either for or against but was allowing the shift swaps. That co-worker could no longer pick up those Sunday shifts, presumably (?) no other co-worker was willing to do the same, and the current mess is the result.
B&H photo in NYC is run by Jews and they don’t even let you buy from their website Friday night to Sat. night. You can add items to the cart but you cannot check out during that time period.
I agree with what you are saying. Some guy is a general screw up and even if you are in an at will state, for whatever reason you want to document why you are firing him. Ten minutes late? That’s a write up. Took a 64 minute lunch? Write up. Etc.
But it seems counterintuitive to take another issue and use a pretext of religion which places you right in the teeth of a lawsuit.
I wasn’t able to link but here are two quotes from the original complaint
.
What this suggests is either that Groff was not scheduled for any Sundays between the one that caused the suspension in January and the one that caused the October suspension or more likely, that Groff was able to find a coworker to take any Sunday shifts he was scheduled for in between those two. Because if Groff had been scheduled to work a Sunday in February or March or April, couldn’t find someone to cover and didn’t show up, that second suspension would have come before October.
Jesus worked on Sundays but it was the work he did on Saturdays that really pissed people off.
That’s obviously a conflict between church and state. The lawsuit should be immediately thrown out.
Oh wow, I almost snorted when I read this.
You dont know much about the post office do you? I work there and I know what people get away with. It would take MUCH more than this to fire some guy.
Note this important line from doreen’s post:
I checked the EEOC’s guidelines. Employers must accommodate an employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs. But how does an employer determine whether an employee’s beliefs are “sincerely held”? According to the EEOC, factors that might undermine an employee’s assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include
• whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;
• whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons
• whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons)
• whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons
The EEOC also says the employer must only ask other employees to voluntarily cover for this employee. Employers don’t need to compel other employees to do so (and in cases of seniority or collective bargaining agreements, cannot do so). Therefore, if no other workers were willing to cover for Groff, he would be required to work those shifts.
I’m still not sure of the details of his work arrangements (like the question just above as to how/whether he managed not to work any Sundays between those two warnings), but as a general matter I’m getting fed up with the idea that businesses get to decide so much of how employees run their lives.
Oh, not working on a Sunday makes it inconvenient for the business? Why should I care about that any more than how the business feels about how working on a Sunday makes it inconvenient for an employee?
But it’s not just a matter of convenience for the business. The EEOC guidelines are very clear about this. Also, often it’s a matter of hardship for other employees. Your coworker claims he can’t work Sundays due to his religious convictions. Sunday is the only day you and your SO both have off. It’d be a whole lot more than inconvenient for you if you now NEVER get Sundays off because of Groff, wouldn’t it?
This is not a slam dunk case for the USPS nor for Groff.
The US Supreme Court today refused to hear a case that appealed a lower court’s ruling that Walgreens did not unlawfully discriminate when they fired Darrell Patterson for not showing up for work on his sabbath. SCOTUS’ refusal to hear the case allows the lower court ruling to stand.
Walgreens had previously accommodated Patterson by allowing him to swap shifts so as not to work on his sabbath.
The lower court’s ruling hinged on whether the requested accommodation placed an “undue burden” on his employer.
That all bodes well for the USPS in Groff’s case but there is at least one factor that might distinguish his case. Patterson’s job included conducting training which might mean there were fewer qualified individuals with whom he might could have swapped shifts, placing a greater burden on his employer to meet his requested accommodation. If Groff’s role is less specialized then more fellow employees may be qualified to fill his role thus placing a lower burden to meet his requested accommodation.