Opinion of the Court
were carried out by the rest of the Holtwood staff, including the postmaster, whose job ordinarily does not involve delivering mail. During other months, Groff ’s Sunday assignments were redistributed to other carriers assigned to the regional hub.[1] Throughout this time, Groff continued to receive “progressive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays. 35 F. 4th 162, 166 (CA3 2022). Finally, in January 2019, he resigned.[2]
A few months later, Groff sued under Title VII, asserting that USPS could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of [USPS’s] business.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(j). The District Court granted summary judgment to USPS, 2021 WL 1264030 (ED Pa., Apr. 6, 2021), and the Third Circuit affirmed. The panel majority felt that it was “bound by [the] ruling” in Hardison, which it construed to mean “that requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.” 35 F. 4th, at 174, n. 18 (quoting 432 U. S., at 84). Under Circuit precedent, the panel observed, this was “not a difficult threshold to pass,” 35 F. 4th, at 174 (internal quotation marks omitted), and it held that this low standard was met in this case. Exempting Groff from Sunday work, the panel found, had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted
- ↑ Other employees complained about the consequences of Groff’s absences. While the parties dispute some of the details, it appears uncontested that at least one employee filed a grievance asserting a conflict with his contractual rights. After disputing any conflict with contract rights, USPS eventually settled that claim, with the settlement reaffirming USPS’s commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding. App. 118, 125–126.
- ↑ Groff represents that his resignation was in light of expected termination, and the District Court found “a genuine issue of material fact” foreclosed summary judgment as to whether Groff suffered an adverse employment action. 2021 WL 1264030, *8 (ED Pa., Apr. 6, 2021). The Government does not dispute the point in this Court.
