RSS
Groff v. DeJoy is the rare Supreme Court decision that every Jew can celebrate
(JTA) — In one of its most anticipated cases of the year, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Groff v. DeJoy last month, significantly expanding the federal protections afforded religious employees in the workplace. The decision itself was unanimous, reflecting a broad consensus that employers should be doing more than previously required when it comes to accommodating religious employees.
Jewish organizations from across the ideological spectrum — from Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union to the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism — applauded the ruling as providing long-elusive workplace protections. This new ruling will no longer allow employers to avoid providing accommodations simply because it comes at some minimal cost. Employers will now have to prove such costs are substantial when considered in the broader context of their business.
When Gerald Groff took his job at the U.S. Postal Service, he was not required to work on Sundays. However, after the Postal Service subsequently entered an agreement to deliver packages for Amazon on Sundays, Groff was informed that he could no longer take off on his Sunday Sabbath, as was his custom, which ultimately led to his termination.
The crux of the case revolved around two words in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “undue hardship.” According to the text of Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of their employees, but only if providing such an accommodation does not present an “undue hardship” to their business. In this way, federal law balances the religious needs of the employee against the business necessities of the employer. And the words “undue hardship,” at least on their face, imply that the employers are expected to endure some hardship in order to accommodate religious employees, but that obligation ends once the hardship to the employer’s business becomes “undue.”
While the text of the law appears to impose modest, but important obligations on employers, the Supreme Court — back in a 1977 case, TWA v. Hardison — provided a contorted interpretation of Title VII that required far less of employers. Somewhat counterintuitively, the Court appeared to hold that providing a religious accommodation imposed an “undue hardship” on the employer any time it required the employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost” — that is, a trivial or minor cost. As a result, if an employer could demonstrate a religious accommodation entailed even a trivial cost, she was off the hook. The court’s decision in Hardison rejected an employee’s claim to have his Sabbath accommodated.
Hardison’s stingy standard, and its significant consequences for American Jews in the workplace, is precisely why so many Jewish organizations with varying political outlooks – including the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, National Council of Young Israel, Orthodox Union (full disclosure: I co-authored the Orthodox Union’s amicus brief), and the Zionist Organization of America — all filed amicus briefs before the Court in Groff. As these briefs emphasized, the lack of meaningful protections for religious employees had, over the years, repeatedly forced American Jews to choose between their faith and their livelihood, most notably when it came to observing the Sabbath and Jewish holidays.
But in Groff, the Supreme Court overhauled the standard for employers: According to the decision, an employer must accommodate a religious employee unless doing so imposes “a burden [that] is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” (Emphasis added.)
So what does this all mean for the future of religious accommodation in the workplace?
As the solicitor general noted during oral arguments, there are three broad categories where employees typically seek religious accommodations: scheduling changes such as those required to facilitate Sabbath observance; dress and grooming policies such as kippahs and hijabs in the workplace; and religious expression in the workplace, which might include an employee’s desire to display (or avoid) some sort of religious symbol or message.
Under the new standard, employers who seek to reject such requests will have to demonstrate that granting these religious accommodations would impose substantial costs. Considerations like administrative costs and modest financial expenditures will be insufficient justification for denying such requests. This impact will likely be felt most directly when it comes to requests to accommodate Sabbath observances. The Court’s opinion indicates that employers will have to consider voluntary shift swaps and modest incentives — such as overtime payments — in order to accommodate a Sabbath-observing employee.
Importantly, this will vary significantly by occupation. For example, while a postal worker might reasonably request time off for the Sunday Sabbath, a coach in the NFL, where games are mostly played on Sundays, cannot.
Similarly, determining whether the financial burdens of accommodation are truly significant will also depend on context. Costs that might be significant for a local grocery store may not be significant for a corporate behemoth like Amazon. Those differences will matter when deciding how much an employer will have to expend when accommodating a particular religious practice.
Finally, the court emphasized that accommodations that trigger deep dissatisfaction from employees — and thereby significantly affect the employer’s business — can qualify as a substantial cost and justify an employer’s decision to deny an accommodation. But the court was careful to constrain these sorts of considerations: An employer cannot claim that she can’t accommodate a religious employee because other employees have expressed dissatisfaction that is based upon their “animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice.” To countenance such bias or hostility would undermine the very purposes of the law — and, in the words of the court, put Title VII “at war with itself.”
To be sure, the significance of Groff is somewhat blunted given that many states have already adopted heightened standards for when religious employees must be accommodated. Before Groff, many employees could still leverage state law protections to secure accommodations. An amicus brief filed by 22 states noted that states with broader protections had not faced significant challenges in administering such legal regimes.
Still, the court’s decision will likely provide long overdue protections to religious employees — fulfilling the long-overdue promise of Title VII. Most notably, the decision likely ensures that religious minorities — whose observances are often out of step with the rhythm of the modern workplace — need not cast aside their religious commitments as the price of employment.
This new standard is mindful of context and careful not to require substantial costs that might undermine a business. At the same time, the court’s decision is clear that employers cannot hide behind minor inconveniences to ignore the requests of their religious employees.
In sum, the court’s decision in Groff — and unanimously so — asks employers and employees to find workable solutions to conflicts between business objectives and faith commitments. In that way, it may provide a useful blueprint for navigating a host of recurring social conflicts across the human condition.
—
The post Groff v. DeJoy is the rare Supreme Court decision that every Jew can celebrate appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
‘Your Nazism Knows No Bounds’: Popular LA Restaurant Draws Backlash After Denying Service to Jewish Man
Protesters outside of Mauro’s Cafe in Los Angeles after a patron wearing a kippah said he was denied a cup of coffee. Photo: Screenshot
A popular restaurant in West Hollywood, California drew protests and widespread backlash online after it allegedly denied service to a Jewish man wearing a kippah.
Mauro Cafe is a small Italian restaurant and cafe in Los Angeles County often frequented by celebrities. On Sunday, a man wearing a kippah said he attempted to order a cup of coffee from the restaurant but was refused.
Video of the man walking into the restaurant before coming out and saying he was denied service because he looked Jewish went viral on social media this week.
West Hollywood cafe owner throws out Jewish customer and REFUSES to serve him after seeing he was wearing a kippah.
Mauro Cafe in Melrose refused to allow the man to buy coffee with one waitress telling him to “get off the property.”
@growthfactororg pic.twitter.com/BXDqPpSBYP
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) July 2, 2024
“The owner, she says I cannot buy a coffee,” the man said in the video after walking out. When asked why he was refused service, he responded, “Because I look like I am Jewish.”
Although the owner of the restaurant, who has been identified as Evelyne Joan, appeared to turn the patron away, employees of the restaurant later bought him a coffee, according to the video.
The incident sparked backlash among Los Angels’ Jewish community, prompting some to protest against antisemitism and discrimination more broadly outside of Mauro Cafe.
Jewish Americans protest outside a cafe in West Hollywood after the owner REFUSED to serve a Jewish customer and threw him out because he was wearing a Kippah.
The owner of Mauro Cafe stood outside as Jews protested against her antisemitic business chanting “Shame.”
@idan_bg pic.twitter.com/6P0ExiWcVE
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) July 2, 2024
“Your Nazism knows no bounds,” one protester yelled.
“The owner of Mauro Cafe, Evelyn [Joan], does not demonstrate for any of the atrocities committed within walking distance of Israel!” another demonstrator said, calling out Joan for only protesting against the Jewish state.
“Apologize!” the activists demanded.
Social media users quickly noted that Joan has a history of protesting against Israel and Jewish sites. The nonprofit organization Jew Hate Database revealed that she participated in the violent anti-Israel demonstration outside of Adas Torah synagogue in the heavily-Jewish Pico-Robertson area of Los Angeles late last month.
In video posted to social media, Joan can be seen holding a microphone while preventing Jews from accessing the synagogue and shouting “Free Palestine” and “Shame on you!”
Demonstrators swarmed the synagogue to protest the sale of Israeli real estate taking place inside the building. The protests quickly descended into violence as anti-Israel protesters were caught on video shoving, punching, and screaming at those attempting to defend the synagogue.
The violence received widespread condemnation. US President Joe Biden slammed the protests as “antisemitic and un-American.”
Outside of Mauro Cafe, activists chastised Joan for her participation in the protest. “When it comes to Jews she runs and blocks their place of worship!” they said, referring to the anti-Israel demonstrators who waved Palestine flags and donned keffiyehs while blocking entry into the Adas Torah synagogue.
Prominent figures on social media decried the restaurant’s apparent anti-Jewish discrimination this past weekend. “Imagine if a white business didn’t serve a black customer. Lead story of every single news program. Mauro Cafe. Run by racist dirtbags,” tweeted conservative political commentator Dave Rubin.
The incident came almost three months after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a report showing antisemitic incidents in the US rose 140 percent last year, reaching a record high. Most of the outrages occurred after Hamas’ Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel, during the ensuing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
The post ‘Your Nazism Knows No Bounds’: Popular LA Restaurant Draws Backlash After Denying Service to Jewish Man first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jews Today Cannot Wait for Miracles
Pro-Hamas activists gather in Washington Square Park for a rally following a protest march held in response to an NYPD sweep of an anti-Israel encampment at New York University in Manhattan, May 3, 2024. Photo: Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
One of the amazing features of the Torah is the way that it conveys human nature with all its greatness and pettiness, triumphs and failures.
This week, we look at the Korach rebellion, in which there are three different groups of protesters each with their own agenda.
Korach and the other Levites were fighting for a religious position and power. On Ben Pelet’s group represented the tribe of Ruben’s political fear of being replaced by the tribe of Judah. And Datan and Aviram were only concerned with their own physical and material interests.
This serious rebellion against the established authority of Moses and Aaron reflects precisely the sorts of conflicts of opinion and commitment that divide the Jewish people to this very day — those who do not identify with the nation, those animated by religious power and authority, and those whose values are the same material values as the secular Western world. Of course, my comparison is fanciful. But I hope it makes a valid point.
The children of Israel faced a crisis of self-image coming out of slavery and subjugation in Egypt. Nevertheless, they escaped from Egypt, arrived at Sinai, and had the national revelation. But almost immediately, they fall back into an idolatrous mindset. And when it came to proceeding to the land of Canaan and not relying on everything to be provided for them, the facade of unity collapsed.
It was clear that the nation was simply not ready to take upon itself the burden of responsibility of running their own affairs within a land of their own. The result was that they were sent back into the wilderness for another generation to prepare themselves psychologically and physically for what would happen 40 years later.
When Moses was faced with this rebellion, his first reaction was to “fall on his face” both in resignation and in supplication to God. God’s response was to give him the confidence to stand up to them.
Moses tries first to reason with them. When this fails, the miracles of the earth opening up — the fire that consumed the Levites who brought the censors, and the staffs that flowered and produced almonds — finally ended the revolt and restored order.
In those days, miracles were visible — and solved the problem. But now both in the Diaspora and in Israel, we are faced as never before with our internal divisions and the increasing tsunami of hatred and denial of our rights (and lives) across the world.
The picture looks so bleak from almost every point of view, so it is not surprising that more and more of us are looking for miracles. And because we can see no rational and logical fair resolution, we turn to prayer.
Prayer is a wonderful tool both of self-validation and connecting with spiritual energy beyond the physical world. But it’s not a tool that can guarantee anything. Similarly, the dream of a Messiah may give us a sense of hope, but we have no guarantees. Besides as the Talmud says, “Ein Somchin Al HaNes” — we cannot and should not rely on miracles
It is up to us to be proactive in our lives ,and take the steps necessary for our self-defense and well-being.
Not everyone is suited or equipped to deal with every threat, whether it is physical, political, or cyber. But we must all be prepared to rise to the challenge and do whatever we can to play our part, no matter how small. We never know how things are going to work out, and we may be surprised by turns of events that we didn’t expect.
Yes, I hope for miracles — but I know one cannot rely on them.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post Jews Today Cannot Wait for Miracles first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Will The New Republic Not Take Action Against Inciteful New Hire?
A scene from the anti-Israel protest that took place outside the exhibit “Nova: Oct. 7 6:29 AM, The Moment Music Stood Still” in New York City on June 10, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
Some journalists report what they see and hear on the ground, while others report what they want to see or hear. It’s unfortunate when that happens, and it is especially prevalent in today’s media.
Talia Jane (or Talia Ben-Ora) belongs in the latter category.
Jane (who identifies with the pronouns they/them) is an associate writer for The New Republic; their work for the publication is labeled as “breaking news.”
Only much of this content is not necessarily breaking news, and it’s not written as such. With headlines that are sarcastic and distorted from the truth, Jane probably manages to grab eyes, but irresponsibly misleads readers.
Jane continuously steps out of bounds as a journalist, backing vile anti-Israel activity (and behavior towards Jews), and passing it off as valid resistance to the Israeli “occupation.”
Earlier in June, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch published an in-depth article on Jane — exposing that The New Republic’s latest hire is a raging anti-Zionist. It appears that Jane also has Jewish heritage.
Deutch’s article centered around this heinous piece Jane wrote for The New Republic on June 14, which defended the recent anti-Israel protest outside the Nova Exhibit in New York. The “breaking news” writer claimed that the protest was not antisemitic in nature.
Here are some clips from said protest.
Appalling antisemitism in NYC — protesting an exhibit commemorating the victims of the massacre at the Nova music festival. The only logical conclusion one can make when you show up to protest against people who were murdered by Hamas, is that you support Hamas and the murder of… pic.twitter.com/c3eyZwRXvV
— Adam Milstein (@AdamMilstein) June 12, 2024
Today the almost daily anti-Israel protests that have besieged NYC since Oct 7th converged on the Nova Exhibit. Those who went to commemorate the slaughter of 100s of innocent Israelis at a music festival were met with chants of “intifada revolution” pic.twitter.com/6mT8FpLfp5
— daniela (@daniela127) June 11, 2024
The TNR journalist also refuses to accept the actual definition of Zionism as the right to self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. Jane has defended this since-expelled Columbia student, who led anti-Israel protests on its campus:
In April, Jane called it ‘insane’ for the White House to criticize a Columbia student who said on social media that Zionists deserve to die, because ‘Zionism is synonymous with ethnonationalist supremacy and *not* Judaism.’
Since Deutch’s article was published on June 20, Jane’s behavior has not changed; this “journalist” and activist continues to share despicable comments and reposts on X (formerly Twitter). This, despite TNR magazine editor Michael Tomasky’s assurance, quoted in the article, that the publication is “working to address the situation.”
Jane took to X to defend anti-Israel protesters, while there is a clear presence of a Hamas flag in the frame:
Just a reminder that NYPD fully and illegally kettled the anti-genocide demo outside a Biden campaign event in Manhattan, then made arrests because the group they prevented from moving…didn’t move. https://t.co/FhcPtXzof0
— Talia Jane (@taliaotg) June 29, 2024
Jane also reposted a donation link from the Hamas-run Gaza Municipality’s X account.
Our damages amount to approximately 1 billion dollars. Please help us raise the first million. Your support is crucial for us to continue our efforts in #Gaza City.
Donation link: https://t.co/DR0P9iVohK
— بلدية غزة – Municipality of Gaza (@munigaza) June 26, 2024
It is a wonder, that after intense backlash over Jane’s piece more than two weeks ago, TNR’s chief editors have allowed this journalist to remain on their staff. The most they appeared to muster up was a disclaimer at the top of said piece.
Although Jane’s articles are currently more US politics-focused in recent weeks, that does not detract from still occurring behavior online. Does TNR approve of this kind of rhetoric and biased, unprofessional behavior to define their reputation?
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Why Will The New Republic Not Take Action Against Inciteful New Hire? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.