Groff, a former mail carrier for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and an observant Evangelical Christian, was subject to progressive discipline over several months because of his commitment to observing the Sunday Sabbath as a day dedicated to worship and rest. He ultimately left his job when it became clear that he would be terminated. His attempt at vindicating his right to a workplace accommodation was unsuccessful in the lower courts, which invoked the old “more than de minimis” standard in ruling that the USPS was permitted to deny Groff’s request to be exempted from Sunday work because of the resulting imposition on his coworkers, disruption to the workplace and its workflow, and diminishment of employee morale. Groff’s case will now return to the lower courts for reassessment under the new, more demanding standard. 

Amid some very high-profile decisions last week, the Supreme Court delivered an important win for religious freedom in the workplace. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Court eased the way for religiously observant employees to obtain accommodations from their employers that are necessary to allow them to live their beliefs. This unanimous decision written by Justice Alito swept aside what the Court characterized as a nearly 50-year-long misunderstanding about the requirements of Title VII and the holding of a 1977 decision called TWA v. Hardison, which lower courts have interpreted to allow employers to deny requests for religious accommodations that would result in any burden on the employer that is “more than … de minimis,” or minimal.
In Groff, the Court says that the reading of its prior holding has been wrong all along. Instead, an employer may deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation only if “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” (emphasis added).
The question presented by this case may seem like the kind of esoteric legal query – complete with obscure Latin terminology – that only a lawyer could love. What does it matter, one might ask, whether Title VII requires that an employer must show a more than de minimis burden or must meet some other standard before denying an employee’s request for a religious accommodation? It turns out it matters a great deal, as the facts of Gerald Groff’s case demonstrate.
Groff, a former mail carrier for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and an observant Evangelical Christian, was subject to progressive discipline over several months because of his commitment to observing the Sunday Sabbath as a day dedicated to worship and rest. He ultimately left his job when it became clear that he would be terminated.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Thursday, February 8, 2024
What’s wrong with this perspective on human life? People everywhere in America agree that a bad attitude in life brings bad results. But the biblical perspective strikes deeper into the fallen nature of humanity. Bad attitude embodies sin – sin against God the Creator, and Christ the Redeemer. The movie also communicates the idea that doing good things with a good attitude will bring good results. But no example by a fallen human being has the power to transform even one person to have a purified heart. Nothing short of the miraculous, creative work of God’s Holy Spirit has the capacity to change the nature of a single soul. 

A marathon. All day long, every two and a half hours. The same old movie about Groundhog Day, which is celebrated in the USA every February 2. If the groundhog comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, this greatest of all prognosticators will have predicted six more weeks of winter.
If a major television network can run the same movie for over 12 hours straight, the message of this movie must capture the heartbeat of a major portion the American people. But what is the message? What is it in this movie that defines a heartbeat of American culture today?
The formula is very simple. Have a negative attitude toward all of life, and everything will go bad for you. Change your attitude and your actions to a positive perspective on all of life, and you will be a person filled with happiness and joy. You will live “happily ever after.”
A simple formula. Everyone can understand it immediately. Change your attitude and your accompanying actions, and you can have a happy, happy life.
So how does the formula play out? Despise your work, despise people, despise even God’s little creatures like a groundhog, and you will be miserable. Bill Murray, the lead actor, has been cast perfectly for this role. While looking miserable, he ignores a poor old street beggar. He scorns an old high school friend. He rudely turns down a nice lady’s offer of the best coffee she can produce. He mocks a small-town community’s joyful celebration.
But these bad attitudes foster grosser actions. He deceives an unsuspecting young woman by lying about their previous fictitious high school years together. He lures her into sexual immorality. He schemes and commits a bank robbery. He steals an automobile and leads small town police through a life-threatening high-speed chase.
In terms of openly and convincingly demonstrating that “out of the heart proceed the issues of life,” the movie does an excellent job. Bad attitude invariably leads to immoral conduct. Unintentionally the truth comes out. A bad heart leads to a miserable life. It even gets so bad that the main character makes many efforts to take his own life. He drives an automobile over a cliff, with the car landing upside down and bursting into a consuming ball of fire. He steps directly into the path of a moving truck. He leaps from the top of the highest building in town. He electrocutes himself in the bathtub. But he cannot succeed in destroying his life. Every morning he wakes up again on February 2nd.
Inadvertently the truth comes out once more, though in distorted form. Question 19 from the child’s catechism simply but profoundly asks: “Do you have a soul as well as a body?” Answer: “Yes, I have a soul that can never die.” You cannot kill your soul, no matter how hard you try.
The second half of the movie tells a different tale. What is this tale?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R. Scott Clark |
Tuesday, July 5, 2022
When we think about film we should ask, “is this a good piece of filmmaking? What is the nature of film? What makes a good film (e.g., screen writing, cinematography, directing, editing, acting etc)? These are the sorts of questions that Christian film critics ought to be asking and answering about film
.
I love a good film. I took three courses in film criticism as an undergraduate. They were more difficult than one might think. First, taking notes in the dark is challenging and reading them afterward is even more difficult. Second, I had to watch a lot of hard-to-watch films, which I would not recommend. Still, I got to watch a number of great films and got to learn a bit about how films are written, shot, and edited. I learned that the really great thing about Citizen Kane is not the banal script or even Orson Welles (1915–85)—the best performance in the film is Joseph Cotton’s—but the cinematography of Gregg Toland (1904–48). The opening shot amazes me still, even after CGI, etc. By the way, the best way to experience Orson Welles is to listen to him. If you enjoy podcasts go to archive.org and search for “Orson Welles old time radio.”
There is an approach to film criticism popular among evangelicals that seeks to find some aspect of a film, e.g., a theme, a story arc, or a character that somehow connects to the Christian faith. This is a mistake driven by a confusion over nature and grace. Evangelicals have long had trouble with the category of nature. For the most part they do not have that category in their intellectual toolbox. Things are thought to be valuable only insofar as they relate to grace (e.g., the new life).
When I became a Christian in the mid-70s, one of the fist things I learned informally, from other Christians, was that once a Christian has been redeemed he should no longer be interested even in the ordinary things that interested him when he was a pagan. Thus, an interest in sports must be replaced by an interest in what they called “spiritual things.” What they were saying is that Christians need to abandon nature for grace.
The Three Ways of Relating Nature and Grace
My new evangelical friends did not realize it but they were repeating an Anabaptist way of thinking about nature (creation) and grace (e.g., redemption). There are broadly three ways of relating nature and grace. The Anabaptist view is, as the Reformed complained, that “grace destroys nature.” The way I explain it to my students is to say that, in the Anabaptist view (which has greatly influenced American evangelicalism since 1800), grace obliterates (i.e., paints over) nature. They think this way because they have an over-realized eschatology, they expect too much of heaven and the future state now. This over-realized eschatology iReas a leaven throughout their theology. It leavens their theology, their ecclesiology, their view of the sacraments, their ethics, and their rejection of nature as a category of thought. In the Anabaptist/evangelical system, nature is thought mainly in terms of fallen nature and thus there is a quasi-Manichaean quality to the way they relate nature and grace.
Read More
Related Posts: