editorials
I n the U.S. House of Representatives, Minnesota
Democrat Ilhan Omar has been a provocative fi gure,
particularly for many in the Jewish community. She is
vocal in her hostility toward Israel. And her comments
about Jews have been either remarkably tone-deaf
or outright antisemitic. She is one of the leaders of
the squad of progressive, outspoken, media-savvy
members of Congress who have been glorifi ed by
many in the left fl ank of the Democratic Party and their
supporters, and vilifi ed by just about everyone else.

So, just as former Democratic Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi moved to penalize similarly off ensive
members of the Republican Party’s outspoken and
outrageous hard-right outliers like Georgia Rep.

Marjorie Taylor Greene — of Jewish space-laser fame
— by stripping her of committee assignments, the new
Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, announced an
intent to do the same to Omar.

But McCarthy has a problem. In a fractious House
Republican caucus where McCarthy has only a whisper
of a majority, he needs to move carefully. And not
everyone in his caucus is with him in removing Omar,
the fi rst member of Congress born in Africa, from the
Foreign Aff airs Committee and its Africa subcommittee.

Two other Democrats — Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric
Swalwell, both of California — are also on McCarthy’s
hit list for removal from their committee assignments.

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.,
is sworn in on Jan. 7.

Most outspoken in her opposition is Rep. Victoria
Spartz (R-Ind.), who criticized McCarthy’s proposed
ouster plans as a distraction from the serious and
necessary work the House should be doing. We agree.

And we encourage McCarthy to stop wasting time.

The attempt to cancel Omar, Schiff and Swalwell is
nothing more than politically infected vindictiveness.

If Democratic leadership wants a party member to
serve on a particular committee (in a seat reserved for
a Democrat) and is willing to accept the consequences
of that choice, that preference should be respected.

And if anyone wants to remove a targeted member
from Congress, then they need to work to convince the
targeted member’s constituents to vote them out.

Our focus is not only on Republicans. We call for
consistency. We encourage a single standard. And it is
for that reason that we believe it was a mistake in 2021
for House Democrats to strip Georgia’s Greene of her
committee memberships in part for her past embrace
of the QAnon conspiracy movement. Quite simply, we
don’t believe it is productive for one party to punish
members of the other party simply because it can.

McCarthy pledged to punish targeted Democrats
should he be elected speaker. If his caucus doesn’t give
him the support he seeks, he will at least be able to say
that he tried. But trying and failing is not a good political
look. So rather than wasting valuable time and political
capital on seeking to punish opponents, McCarthy
should spend his time trying to address some of the big
issues facing this country and working to do something
constructive. In order to succeed, and given his fragile
leadership position, McCarthy and friends will have to
work with Democrats in the House, in the Senate and in
the White House. ■
The Religious Accommodation Test
T itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
employers from discriminating against workers
based on religion and other protected categories.

That law also requires employers to make reasonable
accommodation for a worker’s religious beliefs —
so long as those accommodations don’t impose an
“undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s
business.” But what does “undue hardship”
really mean?
Forty-six years ago, in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v.

Hardison, the Supreme Court ruled that “undue burden”
was defi ned to be “more than a de minimis cost.” In
other words, employers must accommodate a worker’s
religious practices and beliefs if it can be done easily
and at minimal cost. Otherwise, the employee is out of
luck. That very low standard has enabled employers
to refuse many religious accommodation requests and
has frustrated those seeking to require employers to
do more to accommodate the religious practices of
their workers.

That may soon change.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case
of Gerald Groff , an evangelical Christian who observes
10 FEBRUARY 2, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
Sunday as a day of worship and rest. Groff worked as
a non-career auxiliary mail carrier for the U.S. Postal
Service. His job was to fi ll in when other workers were
not available, including on weekends and holidays.

For the fi rst few years of his employment, Groff was
not asked to work on Sundays. But demand for fi ll-ins
increased when the post offi ce started delivering for
Amazon on Sundays. Initially, Groff himself or his
managers were able to arrange for others to fi ll in for
him on that day. But as demand mounted, Groff was
threatened with disciplinary action if he didn’t take
assigned Sunday shifts. Rather than face the disciplinary
threat, Groff quit. He then sued the post offi ce for its
failure to accommodate his religious beliefs.

Both the trial and appellate courts found that the
post offi ce had made reasonable accommodation
for Groff ’s religious beliefs. And they found that
to require anything more would impose an undue
hardship on the post offi ce and on Groff ’s co-workers.

Those rulings were consistent with decades
of other court conclusions since the Hardison
case was decided.

But today’s Supreme Court — with its 6-3 conservative
supermajority and a pronounced sensitivity to religious
accommodation — is widely expected to change things.

For most court watchers, the question isn’t whether the
Hardison case will be overruled but how far the court
will go in defi ning the standard for “undue hardship.”
Religious public-interest groups are urging a standard
like that of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
requires accommodations for disabled workers unless
doing so presents an “undue hardship” on the employer
and defi nes “undue hardship” as an “action requiring
signifi cant diffi culty or expense.”
Such a change would be a big deal, particularly
since the ruling could impact a lot more than the
scheduling of work shifts. Things like an employer’s
grooming and dress-code requirements, workplace
expressions like the wearing of religious objects
and symbols, and even workplace prayer activity
could be implicated by any new defi nition of
“undue hardship.”
There will be a lot riding on how the court seeks to
balance the competing interests of employers and their
workforce. We look forward to argument on the case
and a decision later this year. ■
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
Stop Wasting Valuable Time in the House