The Supreme Court released three rulings on Thursday, one of which was the behemoth 6-3 decision to throw out affirmative action in higher education; the other was a ruling about a trademark infringement case. The final is an important, but somewhat quieter, ruling that strengthens legal protections for people of faith in the workforce.

In a 9-0 decision in the case Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court clarified the precedent used to decide religious accommodations in the workplace, expanding them and sending this case back to the lower courts in light of the ruling.

SUPREME COURT FINALLY TELLS SCHOOLS TO STOP DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF RACE

In the 1977 ruling Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the court said employers need not make religious accommodations for an employee should doing so impose even a small burden on the employer, or as Title VII says, imposes an “undue hardship.�? The justices felt this language was unclear.

In the decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that lower courts previously interpreted “undue hardship�? for employers in a way that was “erroneous�? and “may have had the effect of leading courts to pay insufficient attention to what the actual text of Title VII means with regard to several recurring issues.�?

Alito continues: “We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.�?

Gerald Groff is a former U.S. Postal Service carrier who felt he had to resign after being regularly assigned to work Sundays, despite his religious belief that Sunday was a Sabbath, or rest day. He had attempted to swap work schedules with other colleagues. He eventually sued the USPS, and the case wound up at the Supreme Court.

Aaron Streett, partner at Baker Botts LLP, who argued Groff’s case before the justices, said in a statement, “We are thrilled the Court today recognized that an America that values religious pluralism should respect the religious liberty rights of every employee. Our nation has a long history of protecting its employees from being treated differently at work just because of their faith. This decision is consistent with that history and is a tremendous win for all people of faith.�?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

Federal law already protects the rights of employees to work and live in accordance with their deeply held religious convictions. The Hardison case made it difficult for people of faith to request religious accommodations because almost any workaround for the employer could be deemed too much, and the employer could legally refuse, leaving a religious employee with little recourse but to work on a Sabbath or otherwise violate his or her personal, religious convictions.

This ruling offers much-needed clarifications about just what an “undue hardship�? or small burden means for an employer, and a lower court is more likely now to rule in favor of Groff, the religious postal delivery man who just wanted to honor the Sabbath and do his job. This 9-0 ruling is a boon for religious liberties because it gives more guidelines to workplaces and protects people of faith.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She is an opinion columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.