Groff v. DeJoy - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Groff v. DeJoy - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Author: The Federalist Society June 2, 2023 Duration: 27:01
On April 18, the Court heard oral argument in Groff v. Dejoy and is set to address two issues concerning the protections provided employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. The Court is considering whether to overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Also at issue is whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.

Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff’s coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale.

Join us to hear a breakdown of the oral argument!

Featuring:
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Tuning into the Supreme Court's docket can feel like deciphering a complex code, but SCOTUScast breaks down the arguments and decisions as they happen. Produced by The Federalist Society, this podcast delivers timely, expert analysis from legal scholars and practitioners immediately after oral arguments or when opinions are released. Each episode focuses on a specific case, cutting through the legal jargon to explain the core principles at stake, the questions posed by the justices, and the potential ramifications of the Court's rulings. You'll hear clear, substantive commentary that prioritizes understanding over advocacy, as the Society itself does not take positions on the issues discussed. The goal is to provide listeners with the intellectual tools to engage with these pivotal moments in law. Whether a landmark ruling on constitutional rights or a nuanced interpretation of statutory law, this audio series treats each development with the depth it deserves. For anyone following the judicial branch-from students and attorneys to engaged citizens-this podcast serves as an essential, real-time guide to the nation's highest court, fostering a more informed and thoughtful public discourse.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 100

SCOTUScast
Podcast Episodes
Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 22:01
On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denyi…
United States v. Tsarnaev - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 10:05
On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vac…
Carson v. Makin - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 40:04
On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" r…
Patel v. Garland - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:17
On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Patel v. Garland, holding that Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings…
Golan v. Saada - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 11:15
On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a fo…
Vega v. Tekoh - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 9:44
On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim a…
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:59
On March 30th, the Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. vs. Moriana, a case which concerned whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that…
Siegel v. Fitzgerald - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:21
In April, 2022, the Court heard arguments in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, a bankruptcy case concerning fee increase exemptions in two states. Joining today to discuss the argument is Allyson Ho, partner in the Dallas Office of…
Morgan v. Sundance - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:40
On May 23, 2022 the Court decided Morgan vs. Sundance. Joining today to discuss the 9-0 decision is Stephen J. Ware, the Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas Law School.