rt might decide these issues, floating the idea that overruling or extending Hardison could result in chaos in the workplace.[18] Some argue that no one should have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to keep their job, and non-religious employees may have to sacrifice time with their families to pick up the slack for religious employees who cannot work certain shifts. While others point out that a new precedent could result in employees exploiting religion as a means of getting certain days – particularly weekends – off. This could result in more businesses opting to close on weekends. Only time will tell what a post-Groff weekend will look like.[1] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).[2] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).[3]See, e.g.,Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir. 1985), aff’d and remanded, 479 U.S. 60, (1986)[4]See, e.g.,Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2022), cert. granted, No. 22-174, 2023 WL 178403 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2023); Goldmeier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2003).[5]SeeWebb v. City of Phila., 562 F.3d 256, 259 (3d Cir. 2009).[6]SeeAnsonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 69 (1986).[7]Id. at 68.[8]Id. at 67.[9]Id.[10]Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 77, (1977).[11]Id. at 73.[12]Id at 84-5. (The lower court stated that reasonable accommodations available to TWA to accommodate Hardison included: (1) TWA could have allowed Hardison to work a four-day week; (2) TWA could have replaced Hardison on Saturday with an employee from another department; and (3) TWA could have paid premium wages to another employee willing to work on Saturday in place of Hardison. The SCOTUS responded to these suggestions by highlighting that “each of these alternatives would involve costs to TWA, either in the form of lost efficiency in other jobs or higher wages.” The Court also noted that “to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment