Florida Governor Ron DeSantis slammed the National Hockey League (NHL) in a statement Friday afternoon after the league posted what the state deemed to be a “discriminatory” job posting.

“The NHL is proud to announce its first-ever Pathway to Hockey Summit launching during our 2023 All Star festivities in South Florida!” the NHL said in the job posting on LinkedIn. “The Pathway to Hockey Summit is a career event for diverse job seekers who are pursuing careers in hockey. The day will be filled with guest speakers and panelists, networking opportunities, and more!”

The event takes place on February 2 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the deadline to register for it is today.

“If you are looking for your opportunity to meet with recruiters from the NHL League Office and at least 10 of our NHL teams, we welcome you to register,” the posting said. “Participants must be 18 years of age or older, based in the U.S., and identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability. Veterans are also welcome and encouraged to attend.”

Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for the governor, responded to the news in a statement, saying that this type of discriminatory job posting will not be tolerated in the state of Florida and that the league needs to “immediately remove and denounce the discriminatory prohibitions it has imposed.”

“Discrimination of any sort is not welcome in the state of Florida, and we do not abide by the woke notion that discrimination should be overlooked if applied in a politically popular manner or against a politically unpopular demographic,” DeSantis’ office said in a statement. “We are fighting all discrimination in our schools and our workplaces, and we will fight it in publicly accessible places of meeting or activity.”

“We call upon the National Hockey League to immediately remove and denounce the discriminatory prohibitions it has imposed on attendance to the 2023 ‘Pathway to Hockey’ summit,” the statement continued.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case about a postal worker who was forced out of his job when he did not want to work on Sundays due to his religious convictions.

“It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion,” Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty, one of the firms representing Groff, said in a press release provided to The Daily Wire. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to reconsider a decades old case that favors corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees.”

In 2012, Gerald Groff began working for the United States Postal Service in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, after looking for a job that wouldn’t make him work on Sundays. In accordance with his religious beliefs, Groff wanted to keep the Christian Sabbath.

The post office began package delivery on Sundays for Amazon, leading Groff to decide to be moved to a different branch, although it hurt his employment standing.

The post office then began to make deliveries on Sundays, so Groff requested a religious accommodation in order to keep the Sabbath on Sunday. At first, he was given the accommodation and permitted to work more on other days. The postal service then only gave him options that would still make him work on Sundays.

Groff stepped down and sued the United States Postal Service (USPS).

In a May ruling, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court’s findings favoring USPS.

According to the appeals court’s decision, a district court “found that USPS provided evidence” in various areas showing “undue hardship.” It also said giving Groff Sundays off “was an undue hardship” in part because it would make the sole other substitute carrier work all Sundays with no time off, even though those workers work “as needed.”

Groff’s attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to consider the case and answer two questions.

One was regarding if an employer can show that there is “undue hardship” on their business because a “requested accommodation” places a burden on a worker’s co-workers instead of the business.

They also asked the Supreme Court to question if it should “disapprove” a prior decision made in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) wherein the “more-than-de-minimis-cost test” was established for not granting religious accommodations. In that case, the high court essentially ruled that an undue hardship amounted to making a company take on “more than a de minimis cost.”