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
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas to Release 10 Israeli Hostages as US-Backed Ceasefire Talks Gain Momentum
People watch a screen on the day Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, who was kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, is released from Hamas captivity in Gaza, in Alexander’s hometown of Tenafly, New Jersey, US, May 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
Hamas said it would release 10 Israeli hostages in an effort to reach a ceasefire deal, as growing international pressure mounts on the Palestinian terrorist group to end the 21-month war in the Gaza Strip.
In a statement Wednesday, the Iran-backed terror group said negotiations with Israel had been difficult but reaffirmed its commitment to the talks, while offering no timeline for the hostages’ release.
Hamas “continues its intensive and responsible efforts to ensure the success of the ongoing round of negotiations, striving to reach a comprehensive agreement that ends the aggression against our people, secures the free and safe entry of humanitarian aid, and alleviates the worsening suffering in the Gaza Strip,” the statement reads.
“In its commitment to the success of the current efforts, the movement has shown the necessary flexibility and agreed to release 10 prisoners,” the Palestinian terror group said.
Among the remaining 50 hostages still held in the war-torn enclave, fewer than half are believed to be alive, with 28 reported dead.
Hamas’ latest announcement came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with US President Donald Trump in Washington this week to advance ceasefire efforts focused on securing the release of hostages still held in Gaza.
The US ceasefire plan proposed by Trump sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.
Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.
“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post last week.
Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.
Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.
For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.
On Wednesday, Trump expressed optimism that a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be reached soon, potentially as early as this or next week. However, he also stressed that no agreement is guaranteed yet.
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed similar optimism, saying he believes “we’re closer than we’ve been in quite a while” to securing a ceasefire. He also noted that US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff is hopeful that indirect negotiations will take place soon.
According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war.
For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas. The terror group, meanwhile, is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
In earlier efforts, a ceasefire that ended in March brought roughly two months of relative calm and led to the release of 33 hostages in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.
After the first phase ended, however, the two sides failed to agree on terms for a second phase, leading Hamas to halt further hostage releases and prompting a resumption of Israeli military action.
The post Hamas to Release 10 Israeli Hostages as US-Backed Ceasefire Talks Gain Momentum first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jeffries, House Dem Leaders Demand GOP Rep. Randy Fine Apologize For Calling Ilhan Omar a ‘Terrorist’
Florida Republican State Sen. Randy Fine. Photo: Reuters
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) sharply rebuked Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) for what he called “bigoted and disgusting” rhetoric directed at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), joining a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups denouncing Fine’s remarks as overtly Islamophobic.
In a post on X earlier this week, Fine referred to Omar as a “Muslim terrorist,” adding, “The only shame is that you serve in Congress.” The comment came in response to Omar’s criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to Congress, which she called “shameful.”
Jeffries, joined by Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, issued a joint statement rejecting Fine’s language as “unhinged, racist, and Islamophobic.” The House Democratic leaders urged him to apologize, saying, “These vile comments have no place in our political discourse.”
Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, thanked her colleagues for standing in solidarity. She called on Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) to hold Fine accountable.
“Not only does normalizing this bigotry and violence endanger my life but all Muslims including in Fine’s own district,” Omar posted to her X account. “This type of Islamophobic language demands accountability.”
Fine has not apologized and instead doubled down on his attacks. In a follow-up post, he derided Democratic leadership as the “Hamas Caucus” and responded to backlash with, “Boo hoo.” Speaking to CNN, Fine dismissed criticism of his remarks as “ad hominem attacks” and claimed Democrats were more upset at his tone than at Omar’s earlier comments about Netanyahu, whom she referred to as a war criminal.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has renewed its call for Fine to face formal censure, citing a long record of inflammatory remarks about Muslims and Palestinians. In past social media posts, Fine has suggested deportations and called Palestinians “barbarians,” fueling accusations that his rhetoric goes beyond political disagreement and into outright hate speech.
The controversy arrives amid growing national scrutiny over the rise of incendiary language in politics, particularly as tensions continue to flare over US policy in the Middle East. With calls for accountability mounting, Democratic leaders say Congress must draw a clear line against hate, especially from within its own ranks.
The post Jeffries, House Dem Leaders Demand GOP Rep. Randy Fine Apologize For Calling Ilhan Omar a ‘Terrorist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.