8 | JULY 13 • 2023 

analysis
Supreme Court Ruling in Sabbath 
Job Accommodation Case Has 
Far-Reaching Significance for Jews
I

n a case that drew support from a 
broad array of Jewish groups, the 
Supreme Court ruled unanimously 
that employers had to show a 
“substantial” burden to deny workers 
religious accommodation.
In a decision released on 
June 29, the Court sided with 
Gerald Groff, an evangelical 
Christian mail carrier 
who asked not to work on 
Sundays, his Sabbath. Jewish 
groups that do not often 
line up on the same side of 
church-state issues before the Court were of 
a single voice in this case.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing the 
opinion, sought to substantially narrow 
a 1977 decision that faith groups have 
for years said is so broad in setting the 
standard for religious accommodation 
that it is meaningless.
“We think it is enough to say that an 
employer must show that the burden 
of granting an accommodation would 
result in substantial increased costs in 
relation to the conduct of its particular 
business,” Alito said.
The previous decision had said that 
“to require TWA to bear more than 
a de minimis cost in order to give 
Hardison Saturdays off is an undue 
hardship.” (The now defunct airline 
in that case was the employer of Larry 
Hardison, a Christian who celebrated 
Sabbath on Saturdays.) With this ruling, 
“substantial” effectively replaces “de 
minimis,” or “minimal,” as the standard.

JEWISH REACTION
The decision will have far-reaching 
consequences for Orthodox Jews, said 

Mitchel Aeder, the Orthodox Union’s 
president.
“Members of our community require 
accommodations for Sabbath and 
holiday observance, times to pray, the 
ability to keep kosher and the like,” he 
said in a statement. 
“Such accommodations enable us 
to be not only faithful Jews but also 
productive workers and members of 
American society. That is why the 
Orthodox Union advocated to the 
Court in support of Mr. Groff and why 
we welcome this landmark ruling.”
A number of Orthodox groups filed 
amicus briefs last year. This year, the 
Anti-Defamation League and the 
American Jewish Committee, civil 
rights groups that have often argued for 
church-state separations, also backed 
Groff in amicus briefs.
“Not every belief or practice can 
be accommodated, but experience 
has shown that with some effort and 
goodwill, most can,” Marc Stern, the 

AJC’s chief legal officer, said in an 
email. 
“The Court’s insistence that hardship 
on employers means substantial 
hardship and not de minimis hardship, 
puts real teeth into the law.”
Alito in his decision quoted the 
Orthodox Union’s amicus brief. Because 
of the 1977 ruling, Alito quoted the 
brief as saying “Orthodox Jews once 
again [are] left at the mercy of their 
employers’ good graces.”
He also quoted the Council on 
American-Islamic Relations, which 
noted employer restrictions on clothing, 
an area that Orthodox Jews have also 
cited in the past.
“Muslim women wearing religiously 
mandated attire ‘have lost employment 
opportunities’ and have been excluded 
from ‘critical public institutions like 
public schools, law enforcement 
agencies and youth rehabilitation 
centers’,” Alito wrote, citing parts of the 
CAIR amicus brief. 

Ron 
Kampeas
JTA

PURELY COMMENTARY

