Gorsuch, Alito balk as Supreme Court declines to hear case about workplace religious accommodations

[DonViejo]

John Fritze
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court declined Mondayto hear an appeal that could have set a new standard for how far employers must go to accommodate the religious beliefs of their workers, but two of the court's conservative justices questioned the decision in a blistering dissent.

Jason Small was an electrician for Memphis Light, Gas and Water for more than a decade. His troubles began after an injury in 2013 required him to transfer jobs. Memphis Light offered him a position as a service dispatcher, but Small, a Jehovah’s Witness, worried the job would conflict with his desire to attend services on Wednesday evenings and Sundays and take part in community work on Saturdays.

Small sued in 2017, alleging religious discrimination. Both a federal district court and the Ohio-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that he lacked enough evidence for most of his claims. But the court acknowledged the suit raised a fundamental question that has played into similar lawsuits since the late 1970s: When companies must make religious accommodations and when they may decline to do so. The answer could affect corporate dress codes, such as for headscarves, turbans, and beards, as well as schedules that permit employees to worship.

The case came to the court at a time when the 6-3 conservative majority has looked kindly on claims involving religious freedom. On Monday, the justices offered no explanation for their decision not to hear the dispute. But Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito said it is time to revisit the standard used to decide such cases.

more
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/05/supreme-court-declines-case-religious-accommodation-workplace/7036232002/

[Historic NY]

1. Really people sue when they can change their schedules...

or swap with another employee. I worked 30+ years in public service I would always swap with a fellow employee and they for me. It took him 4 yrs to sue? Yeah OK...who was putting him up to it.

[RKP5637]

2. I'm so tired of these damn religious exemptions and alleged discrimination.

If the job doesn't fit, find another one IMO.

[rurallib]

3. When the plant I worked at went to a 7X24 schedule

somebody in a general meeting spoke up and said "It is real important to me that I go to church on Sunday."

The boss didn't skip a beat "Well, I guess you have some real important decisions to make for yourself."

[FSogol]

4. "the justices offered no explanation for their decision not to hear the dispute" Really, Isn't that

SCOTUS 101: they agree with the lower court ruling?

[onenote]

8. Not always

Sometimes justices choose not to take a particular case because they're waiting for one with a different set of facts to come along or for there to be more division at the appellate level.

[Hortensis]

9. THIS.

[FSogol]

10. Thanks. When you say another one, do you mean one that already is in a lower court or some

theoretical future case?

[onenote]

11. It could be either. Here's what the Supreme Court has said on the subject:

Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912 (1950):

"The sole significance of such denial of a petition for writ of certiorari need not be elucidated to those versed in the Court's procedures. It simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court as a matter "of sound judicial discretion." Rule 38, paragraph 5, Rules of the Supreme Court. A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result....Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.'

[hunter]

5. My wife has endured sometimes brutal 24 hour Christmas calls about once every three years...

... for about thirty years now.

She's a front line health care professional and the trouble is that people can get sick, have babies, suffer severe injuries, die, etc., on any day at any hour of the year.

If most of her coworkers don't want to work Christmas day as well then something has to give.

In this society we expect the electricity to work 24/7 all year around as well.

For certain jobs you have to ask at what point does the religious accommodation stop?

For most jobs religious accommodation ought to be easy.

[Progressive Jones]

6. I don't believe it's anyone's responsibility to

accommodate another's religious activities.
If some "god" doesn't get this, they need a different "god".

[msongs]

7. so if my religion says I should be paid even if I don't come to work...? nt

[48656c6c6f20]

12. ____ religious exemptions and the horse they rode in on.

[Johonny]

13. I think they didn't like this case because the company was offering him an accommodation already.

Given the injury and the company trying to give him a different job, the case feels like a messy case from which to set a new court standard.