CNN — The Supreme Court appeared to support a former mail carrier, an evangelical Christian, who claims that the US Postal Service did not accommodate his request to avoid working on Sundays. Initially, a lower court ruled against the worker, Gerald Groff, stating that his request would create an undue burden on the USPS and impact workplace morale when other employees had to cover his shifts. However, during oral arguments, it became evident that the appeals court had rushed to reject Groff’s case. There seemed to be a consensus among the justices, described by Justice Elena Kagan as “kumbaya-ing” at times. But while the justices aimed to establish a test for lower courts to determine the extent of employers’ obligation to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs, disagreements arose when Groff’s lawyer proposed overturning long-standing precedent. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed open to the possibility. Nevertheless, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh empathized with the Postal Service’s argument that granting Groff’s request could undermine morale among other employees. Kavanaugh emphasized the importance of “morale” for any business’s success. Furthermore, several justices recognized the financial challenges the USPS has faced over the years. In 2012, Groff, who resides in Pennsylvania, worked as a rural carrier associate at the United States Postal Service. This position involves covering for absent career employees who have earned weekend breaks. Rural carrier associates are expected to be flexible. However, in 2013, the USPS partnered with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays, posing a conflict for Groff, whose Christian beliefs prevent him from working on Sundays. The post office considered several accommodations for Groff, such as adjusting his schedule to allow him to work after religious services or finding other employees to cover his shifts. At one point, the postmaster himself made deliveries because it was challenging to find employees willing to work on Sundays. Finally, the USPS suggested that Groff choose a different day to observe the Sabbath. However, tensions with his co-workers escalated, and Groff faced progressive discipline. In response, he filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for enforcing laws prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace. Ultimately, Groff left the USPS in 2019, stating in his resignation letter that he could not find an accommodating work environment that respected his religious beliefs. Groff sued, arguing that the USPS violated Title VII, a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination in employment. To make a claim under this law, an employee must demonstrate a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, inform the employer of the conflict, and have faced discipline for non-compliance. Once these conditions are met, the burden shifts to the employer. They must show that they made a good faith effort to reasonably accommodate the employee’s belief or prove that such accommodation would cause undue hardship. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl, appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled against Groff, stating that his request not to work on Sundays would impose undue hardship on the USPS. The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling in a 2-1 opinion. The dissenting judge, Thomas Hardiman, offered guidance to the justices in favor of Groff. He argued that the law requires the USPS to demonstrate how the proposed accommodation would harm the “business,” rather than Groff’s coworkers. Groff’s lawyer, Aaron Streett, argued before the Supreme Court that the USPS could have done more and was wrong to consider respecting Groff’s belief burdensome. Streett urged the justices to limit or invalidate precedent and permit an accommodation that allows the worker to serve both his employer and his faith. The Biden administration urged the high court to clarify the law, stating that employers are not obligated to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath observance by operating shorthanded or incurring regular overtime costs for replacement workers. However, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that employers may still be required to bear other expenses related to rearranging schedules. This story has been updated with additional details.