meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
The Tikvah Podcast

Nathan Diament on Whether the Post Office Can Force Employees to Work on the Sabbath

The Tikvah Podcast

Tikvah

Judaism, News, Politics, Religion & Spirituality

4.8658 Ratings

🗓️ 11 May 2023

⏱️ 41 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. An employer can't say that he won't hire Muslims or Mormons or Jews, and he can't fire one of his employees because of their faith. But how is religion defined? Religion, after all, is both a belief and a practice. It's not only what happens in the head of the believer—it's also the actions the believer undertakes based on their religion. That question has been a major point of legal battles relating to religion and the Civil Rights Act over the last sixty years.

In 1977, the Supreme Court heard the case of TWA v Hardison. Larry Hardison was a Christian employee at Trans World Airlines and felt that he could not work on the Sabbath (which his particular Christian denomination kept, like Jews, on Saturdays). TWA tried to reassign him, but that didn't work and he was eventually fired. When Hardison sued TWA for religious discrimination, the court sided with TWA, arguing that, yes, accommodations should be made for believers, but that TWA tried to make some reasonable accommodations and could not be expected to make more than that. Not everyone on the court agreed; Thurgood Marshall wrote, in his dissent from the majority's opinion, that "religious diversity has been seriously eroded" by the ruling.

Since then, the decision in TWA v Hardison has held. Yet it may not hold for much longer. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard a new case about an American Christian who, like Larry Hardison, was fired for keeping the Sabbath. That case, Groff v. DeJoy, could be a major moment in the history of religious freedom in America. Nathan Diament, executive director for the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, is the co-author of the OU's amicus brief on this case, and also the author of an April 17 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Can the Post Office Force a Christian to Deliver on Sunday?" He joins Mosaic editor Jonathan Silver to discuss his argument, the history of the issue, and what the Supreme Court might decide.

Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

In 1964, the United States Congress passed a landmark civil rights act that was then signed into law

0:14.6

by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2 of that year.

0:18.7

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 broadly outlaws discrimination on the basis

0:23.3

of race, religion, sex, national origin. It's one of the main pillars of religious freedom

0:28.6

in the United States. The act is organized into 11 different categories, or in the parliamentary

0:34.7

language of the document, titles, that specify and contour the application

0:39.5

of the basic law in different areas of civic life. For example, Title I refers to voting rights.

0:46.3

Title II refers to establishments like hotels, restaurants, and theaters that may be privately

0:52.8

held, but which nevertheless serve the broad public.

0:56.4

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is about employment, and it prohibits, among other things,

1:02.3

employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their religion. You can't say

1:08.3

that you won't hire Muslims or Mormons or Jews as a matter of

1:12.5

policy, and you can't fire one of your employees because of their faith. Now, as we've

1:17.9

explored on the podcast and in the pages of Mosaic before, the intellectual and legal tradition

1:23.7

of religious freedom is very important to the actual protections that this law affords.

1:29.3

You see, now just to very briefly summarize, one strand in the history of religious freedom

1:34.6

or religious toleration deployed the language of conscience to describe the thing that should

1:40.4

be protected. And freedom of conscience means that you can think whatever you want,

1:44.7

be it as heterodox or theologically scandalous as you like, and the state should protect your

1:50.4

ability to follow your conscience wherever it honestly leads. Or, in other words, the state does not have

1:57.0

the power to dictate what you're supposed to think in your head. And who among us

2:01.2

would gainsay that important right? It's something we should certainly cherish. But we should

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Tikvah, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Tikvah and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.