Washington (United States) (AFP) - The US Supreme Court's conservative majority struggled Tuesday to balance two of its core interests in a case that pitted workers' religious rights against business profits.
The court heard arguments in the lawsuit by former postal worker Gerald Groff, whose requests to not work on Sundays due to his Christian beliefs were not accommodated by the US Postal Service, which claimed the legal standard of "undue hardship" to its business.
But the arguments focused little on the specifics of his claims, which had been rejected by the federal district and appeals courts.
Instead, they honed in on a 46-year-old precedent case that US religious groups have had in their sights for years, because it has made it easy for private and public employers to not accommodate a worker's religious beliefs.
The case raised the possibility that the court, now solidly tilted to the right, would overturn another legal standard targeted by social conservatives, after landmark rulings against abortion rights and for gun rights.
Business hardship?
But the over two hours of debate Tuesday showed some conservative justices wary of making a legal shift that could burden businesses.
The focus was a 1977 case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, in which the court sided with the now-defunct carrier which fired a Christian worker who would not work Saturdays.
That case hinged on federal rights law that a worker's religious beliefs must be accommodated unless the business would experience "undue hardship."
But the Hardison case interpreted undue hardship as anything more than minimal -- "de minimis" -- cost to the business.
That became a standard that religious rights advocates say essentially allowed any business to reject an employee's faith-related work requests.
Since 2020, three of the Supreme Court's conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, have sought an opportunity to overturn the Hardison case.
Hardison violates the premise "that employees should not be forced to choose between their faith and their job," argued Groff's attorney Aaron Streett.
"Hardison's 'de minimis' test makes a mockery of the English language and no party truly defends it today," he said.
Flexible work schedules
Solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Biden administration against Groff's case, largely agreed.
But she urged the court to not overturn Hardison outright, saying that case law since 1977 has raised the bar for businesses to justify not accommodating a worker's beliefs.
In practice, she said, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, "courts regularly are requiring employers to provide flexible work schedules."
Streett rejected that claim, calling the Hardison-rooted case law a "patchwork" under which courts still rule for businesses using the "de minimis" burden standard.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic, agreed.
"If this language 'de minimis' has been leading courts of appeals astray, what is the point of retaining that formulation?" she asked.
Other conservative justices asked that if businesses can be forced to accommodate handicapped workers under US law, even when costs are significant, then why can't similar rules exist for religious accommodations.
Prelogar insisted however that throwing out Hardison would eviscerate all the subsequent case precedents, creating legal chaos for workers and businesses.
"My concern is that any verbal formulation the court might choose as a replacement could potentially call into question this well-developed body of law," she said.
It was not clear which way the justices would turn, on Groff's suit or the broader Hardison issue.
But Gorsuch offered a possible compromise: a ruling that would not overturn Hardison but would soundly reject the "de minimis" standard.
"If we were simply to say that some courts have taken this 'de minimis' language rather seriously, and no one before us defends it," he suggested.
"Then maybe we could do a good day's work and put a period at the end of it, by saying that that is not the law," he said.
The court is to make its decision by June 30.
