Groff v. DeJoy

• Decision Date: 25 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1900
• Citation: 35 F.4th 162
• Parties: Gerald E. GROFF, Appellant v. Louis DEJOY, Postmaster General United States Postal Service
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

35 F.4th 162

Gerald E. GROFF, Appellant

v.Louis DEJOY, Postmaster General United States Postal Service

No. 21-1900

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued January 25, 2022

Filed: May 25, 2022

Christopher Tutunjian [ARGUED], Aaron M. Streett, Baker Botts L.L.P., 910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza, 37th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, David W. Crossett Cornerstone Law Firm, LLC, 8500 Allentown Pike, Suite 3, Blandon, PA 19510, David J. Hacker, Hiram S. Sasser, III, Stephanie N. Taub, First Liberty Institute, 2001 West Plano Parkway, Suite 1600, Plano, TX 75075, Alan J. Reinach, Church State Council, 2686 Townsgate Road, Westlake Village, CA 91361, Jeremy L. Samek, Randall L. Wenger, Independence Law Center, 23 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, Counsel for Appellant

Veronica J. Finkelstein [ARGUED], Lauren E. DeBruicker, Office of United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellee

Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Gerald Groff is a Sunday Sabbath observer whose religious beliefs dictate that Sunday is meant for worship and rest. As a result, Groff informed his employer, the United States Postal Service ("USPS"), that he was unable to work on Sundays. USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts with him, but on more than twenty Sundays, no co-worker would swap, and Groff did not work. Groff was disciplined and ultimately left USPS.

Groff sued USPS¹ for violating Title VII by failing to reasonably accommodate his religion. Because the shift swaps USPS offered to Groff did not eliminate the conflict between his religious practice and his work obligations, USPS did not provide Groff a reasonable accommodation. The accommodation Groff sought (exemption from Sunday work), however, would cause an undue hardship on USPS, and so we will affirm the District Court's order granting summary judgment in USPS's favor.

I

A

USPS employs several types of postal carriers. One type is a Rural Carrier Associate ("RCA"). An RCA is a non-career employee who provides coverage for absent career employees. RCAs work "as needed," so the job requires flexibility. JA456. RCAs do not accrue leave, and any leave they take is unpaid. USPS also employs Assistant Rural Carriers ("ARCs") who are hired to work only on Sundays and holidays. At the time of Groff's employment, there was a shortage of RCAs in his region.

Groff joined USPS in 2012. He became an RCA that year. In March 2014, Groff transferred to the Quarryville Post Office, where he worked until he transferred to the Holtwood Post Office in August 2016. Groff remained at Holtwood until he resigned from USPS in January 2019.

B

In 2013, USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver Amazon packages, including on Sundays. Amazon delivery initially began at only some post offices and the scheduling of RCAs was left to each postmaster's discretion.² The success of Amazon Sunday delivery was critical to USPS.

In May 2016, USPS and the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association ("Union") entered a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") concerning Sunday and holiday parcel delivery.³ The MOU created two scheduling arrangements. During the peak season (mid-November through early January), each post office was responsible for scheduling its own carriers and delivering its packages on Sundays and holidays. During the non-peak season (late January through mid-November), individual post offices became part of a regional hub, from which all Sunday and holiday mail was delivered. The Quarryville and Holtwood Post Offices are part of the Lancaster Annex hub.

To staff the hub during the non-peak season, USPS generated a list of part-time flexible rural carriers, substitute rural carriers, RCAs, and rural relief carriers employed at post offices within the geographic area serviced by the Lancaster Annex hub. USPS asked these employees whether they wanted to work on Sundays and holidays. Based on their responses, USPS created two lists: volunteers and non-volunteers.⁴ Each list was alphabetized by last name, without regard to seniority, classification, or assigned office. For Sundays and holidays, management first scheduled any ARCs assigned to the hub. If this was insufficient for coverage, management then scheduled from the volunteer list on a rotating basis. If more coverage was needed, management would then schedule from the non-volunteer list on a rotating basis. All scheduled carriers then reported to the Lancaster Annex for the Sunday or holiday delivery.⁵ The MOU contained two exemptions for Sunday or holiday work. USPS could skip an individual (1) who had approved leave adjacent to a Sunday or holiday, or (2) whose workweek would exceed forty hours if assigned to work on the Sunday or holiday.⁶

Quarryville began delivering Amazon packages on Sundays in 2015. Quarryville was a relatively large station and had sufficient carriers available for Sunday delivery. Before the MOU went into effect, the Quarryville Postmaster exempted Groff from Sunday work so long as he provided coverage for other shifts throughout the week. After the MOU went into effect, the Postmaster informed Groff that he would have to work Sundays during the peak season or find another job.

To avoid Amazon Sunday deliveries, Groff transferred to Holtwood, a small station with a postmaster, three full-time carriers, and three RCAs (including Groff). In March 2017, however, Holtwood began Amazon Sunday deliveries.

Groff informed the Holtwood Postmaster that he would not be reporting to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. In response, the Holtwood Postmaster offered Groff several options. The Holtwood Postmaster offered to adjust Groff's schedule to permit him to attend religious services on Sunday morning and report to work afterward, which was an accommodation provided to other employees. Later, the Holtwood Postmaster sought out others to cover Groff's Sunday shifts, which he said was the only accommodations that would not "impact operations." JA599. During the 2017 peak season, another RCA agreed to cover Groff's Sunday shifts, but she was later unable to do so due to an injury. As a result, the remaining RCA and the Holtwood Postmaster worked all Sunday shifts. Groff acknowledged that his fellow RCA had to bear the burden of Amazon Sundays alone during the 2017 peak season.

Because Groff did not work when scheduled on Sundays, he faced progressive discipline. During the disciplinary process, USPS proposed another alternative: pick a different day of the week to observe the Sabbath.

Groff contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") counselor at USPS to pursue pre-complaint counseling, during which he requested a total exemption from Sunday work. Thereafter, Groff filed a complaint with the EEO office. USPS determined that Groff established a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate, but that USPS did not engage in discrimination.

Thereafter, Groff requested a lateral transfer to a position that did not require Sunday work. All available positions typically required Sunday work, however, so his request was rejected. To accommodate Groff during the 2018 peak season, the Holtwood Postmaster again attempted to find coverage for each Sunday that Groff was scheduled to work. The Holtwood Postmaster described finding coverage for Groff as "not always easy, ... time consuming, and [that] it added to [his] workload and those of other postmasters." JA452.

In addition to the resources expended to find coverage, Groff's absence had other consequences. The Holtwood Postmaster himself was forced to deliver mail on Sundays when no RCAs were available because putting off delivery until Monday would have impacted efficiency and safety the following day.⁷ Moreover, Groff's refusal to report on Sundays created a "tense atmosphere" among the other RCAs, as they had to work more Sundays to cover Groff's absences, JA 464, and resentment toward management.

Groff's absence also had an impact at the hub during the non-peak season. For example, other carriers were called to work at the hub more frequently, which resulted in other employees "do[ing] more than their share of burdensome work." JA218. One supervisor at the hub testified that this contributed to morale problems amongst the RCAs. In addition, USPS scheduled an extra person to work at the Lancaster Annex each Sunday on which Groff was scheduled in anticipation that he would not show up. However, in July 2018, management was directed not "to overschedule non volunteers to accommodate" Groff.⁸ JA684. Groff's absence also required the other carriers to deliver more mail than they otherwise would have on Sundays. JA492.

Groff received additional discipline and submitted two more EEO complaints, in which he again sought an accommodation not to work on Sundays or a transfer to a position that did not require Sunday work.

Groff resigned in January 2019. In his resignation letter, he stated that he decided to leave his job because he was unable to find an "accommodating employment atmosphere with the USPS that would honor [his] personal religious beliefs" and would instead pursue "more rewarding work/service interests." JA388.

After Groff's employment ended, USPS issued a final agency decision as to Groff's complaints challenging the discipline and USPS's alleged failure to accommodate. USPS found no discrimination. Groff did not appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions ("EEOC").

C

Groff sued USPS, alleging two causes of action for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (1) disparate treatment, and (2) failure to accommodate. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted USPS summary judgment on both claims. Groff v. DeJoy, No. 19-1879, 2021 WL 1264030, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2021).⁹

The District Court stated that our Court never squarely held that an accommodation needs...