In a rare and historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 9-0 in favor of Gerald Groff, a Pennsylvania postal worker whose refusal to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays due to his Christian faith sparked a national debate on religious freedom in the workplace.
The ruling marks a major turning point in how employers must interpret and accommodate the religious practices of their employees under federal law. The Court’s unanimous opinion redefines the threshold for what constitutes an “undue hardship” when granting religious accommodations — a clarification that many legal scholars view as a significant expansion of workers’ rights.
Gerald Groff, who worked as a rural carrier associate in Lancaster County, had long observed Sunday as his Sabbath. When the U.S. Postal Service began delivering packages for Amazon on weekends in 2013, Groff faced an impossible choice: honor his religious convictions or comply with his employer’s new requirements. Refusing to abandon his faith, he sought legal protection that would allow him to continue working without compromising his beliefs.
For nearly fifty years, the 1977 Trans World Airlines v. Hardison precedent had set the standard for religious accommodations in the workplace. Under that ruling, employers could deny such accommodations if they caused more than a “de minimis,” or minimal, cost to the business. Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, argued that this interpretation had long undermined the intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to accommodate religious observances unless doing so causes a significant hardship.
In this case, the Court agreed. By rejecting the old “de minimis” standard, the justices declared that employers must demonstrate real, substantial difficulty or expense before denying an employee’s request for religious accommodation.
The ruling represents not only a personal victory for Groff but also a defining moment for workers across the United States, reaffirming that religious liberty cannot be dismissed for the sake of convenience or corporate scheduling. It sets a powerful precedent that faith-based observance is a protected right — one that employers must now take seriously.
