Connect with us

Business

Supreme Court Sides With Postal Carrier Who Refused to Work on Sabbath

Published

on

Supreme Court Sides With Postal Carrier Who Refused to Work on Sabbath

The Supreme Court broadened protections on Thursday for religious workers in a case that involved a mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service who refused to work on his Sabbath.

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected a test that had long been used to determine what accommodations an employer must make for religious workers, but declined to rule on the merits of the case, sending it back to a lower court to consider under a new standard.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the case gave it the “first opportunity in nearly 50 years” to explain the nuances of how workplaces must adapt to religious requests by employees.

For an employer to deny an employee’s request or a religious accommodation, Justice Alito wrote, it “must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

The decision could affect countless workplaces and could require many employers to make substantial changes to accommodate religious workers.

Advertisement

The ruling is the latest in a series by the court that have focused on expanding the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values, like gay rights and access to contraception.

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has ruled that a high school football coach had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games, that state programs supporting private schools in Maine and Montana must include religious ones, that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children and that the Trump administration could allow employers with religious objections to deny contraception coverage to female workers.

The latest decision may be less divisive than some of the court’s recent rulings on religion, in part because protecting observance of the Sabbath may not split Americans along the usual lines. Indeed, liberal justices have tried in the past to shield workers from discipline and termination for following their faith, and all three on the court signed onto the decision.

The case was brought by Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian and former missionary who worked as a substitute mail carrier. After the Postal Service made a deal with Amazon in 2013 to deliver packages on Sundays, Mr. Groff said he had to choose between his faith and his livelihood, opting to quit after being disciplined for missing work.

“I felt that I had a decision between what the post office wanted and what God wanted of me,” Mr. Groff said in an interview on Thursday. “I hope that this is inspiring to people because in America we do have these freedoms and they’re protected.”

Advertisement

The Postal Service said in a statement that it was confident that it would prevail once the lower court reconsidered the case.

Mr. Groff was represented by First Liberty Institute, which describes itself as the largest legal organization in the nation focused exclusively on defending religious freedom.

Kelly Shackelford, the president and chief counsel of First Liberty, welcomed the ruling, saying that it restored “religious freedom to every American in the workplace.”

“This decision will positively help millions and millions of Americans — those who work now and their children and grandchildren,” he said.

American Atheists, which advocates secularism in governmental policies and which submitted an amicus brief in support of the Postal Service in the case, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, said the ruling continued a worrying trend.

Advertisement

“While today’s decision doesn’t give religious employees carte blanche in the workplace, it certainly continues this court’s recent practice of expanding loopholes, accommodations and ‘rights’ for the religious while shifting more burdens onto atheists, humanists and the nonreligious,” said Geoffrey T. Blackwell, litigation counsel for the group.

Mr. Groff had sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” workers’ religious practice so long as they can do so “without undue hardship” to the company’s business.

A 1977 precedent, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, stood in his way. That decision said that employers need not accommodate workers if the effort imposed more than a trifling, or “de minimis,” burden on their businesses.

Lawyers for the Postal Service argued that Mr. Groff’s refusal to work on Sundays imposed a significant burden on a small post office, was in tension with an agreement with a labor union and was bad for other workers’ morale.

Lower courts ruled against Mr. Groff. Judge Patty Shwartz, writing for a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, said that “exempting Groff from working on Sundays caused more than a de minimis cost on U.S.P.S. because it actually imposed on his co-workers, disrupted the workplace and work flow, and diminished employee morale.”

Advertisement

In dissent, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman wrote that “the majority renders any burden on employees sufficient to establish undue hardship, effectively subjecting Title VII religious accommodation to a heckler’s veto by disgruntled employees.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Albania Gives Jared Kushner Hotel Project a Nod as Trump Returns

Published

on

Albania Gives Jared Kushner Hotel Project a Nod as Trump Returns

The government of Albania has given preliminary approval to a plan proposed by Jared Kushner, Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law, to build a $1.4 billion luxury hotel complex on a small abandoned military base off the coast of Albania.

The project is one of several involving Mr. Trump and his extended family that directly involve foreign government entities that will be moving ahead even while Mr. Trump will be in charge of foreign policy related to these same nations.

The approval by Albania’s Strategic Investment Committee — which is led by Prime Minister Edi Rama — gives Mr. Kushner and his business partners the right to move ahead with accelerated negotiations to build the luxury resort on a 111-acre section of the 2.2-square-mile island of Sazan that will be connected by ferry to the mainland.

Mr. Kushner and the Albanian government did not respond Wednesday to requests for comment. But when previously asked about this project, both have said that the evaluation is not being influenced by Mr. Kushner’s ties to Mr. Trump or any effort to try to seek favors from the U.S. government.

“The fact that such a renowned American entrepreneur shows his interest on investing in Albania makes us very proud and happy,” a spokesman for Mr. Rama said last year in a statement to The New York Times when asked about the projects.

Advertisement

Mr. Kushner’s Affinity Partners, a private equity company backed with about $4.6 billion in money mostly from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East sovereign wealth funds, is pursuing the Albania project along with Asher Abehsera, a real-estate executive that Mr. Kushner has previously teamed up with to build projects in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The Albanian government, according to an official document recently posted online, will now work with their American partners to clear the proposed hotel site of any potential buried munitions and to examine any other environmental or legal concerns that need to be resolved before the project can move ahead.

The document, dated Dec. 30, notes that the government “has the right to revoke the decision,” depending on the final project negotiations.

Mr. Kushner’s firm has said the plan is to build a five-star “eco-resort community” on the island by turning a “former military base into a vibrant international destination for hospitality and wellness.”

Ivanka Trump, Mr. Trump’s daughter, has said she is helping with the project as well. “We will execute on it,” she said about the project, during a podcast last year.

Advertisement

This project is just one of two major real-estate deals that Mr. Kushner is pursuing along with Mr. Abehsera that involve foreign governments.

Separately, the partnership received preliminary approval last year to build a luxury hotel complex in Belgrade, Serbia, in the former ministry of defense building, which has sat empty for decades after it was bombed by NATO in 1999 during a war there.

Serbia and Albania have foreign policy matters pending with the United States, as both countries seek continued U.S. support for their long-stalled efforts to join the European Union, and officials in Washington are trying to convince Serbia to tighten ties with the United States, instead of Russia.

Virginia Canter, who served as White House ethics lawyer during the Obama and Clinton administrations and also an ethics adviser to the International Monetary Fund, said even if there was no attempt to gain influence with Mr. Trump, any government deal involving his family creates that impression.

“It all looks like favoritism, like they are providing access to Kushner because they want to be on the good side of Trump,” Ms. Canter said, now with State Democracy Defenders Fund, a group that tracks federal government corruption and ethics issues.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Craft supplies retailer Joann declares bankruptcy for the second time in a year

Published

on

Craft supplies retailer Joann declares bankruptcy for the second time in a year

The craft supplies and fabric retailer Joann filed for bankruptcy for the second time in less than a year, as the chain wrestles with declining sales and inventory shortages, the company said Wednesday.

The retailer emerged from a previous Chapter 11 bankruptcy process last April after eliminating $505 million in debt. Now, with $615 million in liabilities, the company will begin a court-supervised sale of its assets to repay creditors. The company owes an additional $133 million to its suppliers.

“We hope that this process enables us to find a path that would allow Joann to continue operating,” said interim Chief Executive Michael Prendergast in a statement. “The last several years have presented significant and lasting challenges in the retail environment, which, coupled with our current financial position and constrained inventory levels, forced us to take this step.”

Joann’s more than 800 stores and websites will remain open throughout the bankruptcy process, the company said, and employees will continue to receive pay and benefits. The Hudson, Ohio-based company was founded in 1943 and has stores in 49 states, including several in Southern California.

Advertisement

According to court documents, Joann began receiving unpredictable and inconsistent deliveries of yarn and sewing items from its suppliers, making it difficult to keep its shelves stocked. Joann’s suppliers also discontinued certain items the retailer relied on.

Along with the “unanticipated inventory challenges,” Joann and other retailers face pressure from inflation-wary consumers and interest rates that were for a time the highest in decades. The crafts supplier has also been hindered by competition from others in the space, including Michael’s, Etsy and Hobby Lobby, said Retail Wire Chief Executive Dominick Miserandino.

“It did not necessarily learn to evolve like its nearby competitors,” Miserandino said of Joann. “Not many people have heard of Joann in the way they’ve heard of Michael’s.”

Joann is not the first retailer to continue to struggle after going through bankruptcy. The party supply chain Party City announced last month it would be shutting down operations, after filing for and emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023.

Over the last two years, more than 60 companies have filed for bankruptcy for a second or third time, Bloomberg reported, based on information from BankruptcyData. That’s the most over a comparable period since 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic kept shoppers home.

Advertisement

Discount chain Big Lots filed for bankruptcy last September, and the Container Store, a retailer offering storage and organization products, declared bankruptcy last month. Companies that rely heavily on brick-and-mortar locations are scrambling to keep up with online retailers and big-box chains. Fast-casual restaurants such as Red Lobster and Rubio’s Coastal Grill have also struggled.

High prices have prompted consumers to pull back on discretionary spending, while rising operating and labor costs put additional pressure on businesses, experts said. The U.S. annual inflation rate for 2024 was 2.9%, down from 3.4% in 2023. But inflation has been on the rise since September and remains above the Federal Reserve’s goal of 2%.

If a sale process for Joann is approved, Gordon Brothers Retail Partners would serve as the stalking-horse bidder and set the floor for the auction.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines Over Chronic Delays

Published

on

U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines Over Chronic Delays

The federal government sued Southwest Airlines on Wednesday, accusing the airline of harming passengers who flew on two routes that were plagued by consistent delays in 2022.

In a lawsuit, the Transportation Department said it was seeking more than $2.1 million in civil penalties over the flights between airports in Chicago and Oakland, Calif., as well as Baltimore and Cleveland, that were chronically delayed over five months that year.

“Airlines have a legal obligation to ensure that their flight schedules provide travelers with realistic departure and arrival times,” the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, said in a statement. “Today’s action sends a message to all airlines that the department is prepared to go to court in order to enforce passenger protections.”

Carriers are barred from operating unrealistic flight schedules, which the Transportation Department considers an unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practice. A “chronically delayed” flight is defined as one that operates at least 10 times a month and is late by at least 30 minutes more than half the time.

In a statement, Southwest said it was “disappointed” that the department chose to sue over the flights that took place more than two years ago. The airline said it had operated 20 million flights since the Transportation Department enacted its policy against chronically delayed flights more than a decade ago, with no other violations.

Advertisement

“Any claim that these two flights represent an unrealistic schedule is simply not credible when compared with our performance over the past 15 years,” Southwest said.

Last year, Southwest canceled fewer than 1 percent of its flights, but more than 22 percent arrived at least 15 minutes later than scheduled, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines and American Airlines all had fewer such delays.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In it, the government said that a Southwest flight from Chicago to Oakland arrived late 19 out of 25 trips in April 2022, with delays averaging more than an hour. The consistent delays continued through August of that year, averaging an hour or more. On another flight, between Baltimore and Cleveland, average delay times reached as high as 96 minutes per month during the same period. In a statement, the department said that Southwest, rather than poor weather or air traffic control, was responsible for more than 90 percent of the delays.

“Holding out these chronically delayed flights disregarded consumers’ need to have reliable information about the real arrival time of a flight and harmed thousands of passengers traveling on these Southwest flights by causing disruptions to travel plans or other plans,” the department said in the lawsuit.

The government said Southwest had violated federal rules 58 times in August 2022 after four months of consistent delays. Each violation faces a civil penalty of up to $37,377, or more than $2.1 million in total, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The Transportation Department on Wednesday also said that it had penalized Frontier Airlines for chronically delayed flights, fining the airline $650,000. Half that amount was paid to the Treasury and the rest is slated to be forgiven if the airline has no more chronically delayed flights over the next three years.

This month, the department ordered JetBlue Airways to pay a $2 million fine for failing to address similarly delayed flights over a span of more than a year ending in November 2023, with half the money going to passengers affected by the delays.

Continue Reading

Trending