Funeral Leaves Are Not Always What They May Seem

12 August 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

We often counsel employers to be wary of employment law considerations in situations that may not seem obvious at first glance.  For example, prohibiting employees from using certain language on social media sites has proven to be a problem, even for non-union employers. Employers also thought they were on firm ground by refusing to hire candidates with recent criminal convictions until the EEOC weighed in.

Continuing with this trend, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion last month that should cause employers to rethink the potential discriminatory impact of even routine personnel management decisions. Who would have ever thought an employer has to consider obligations to make religious accommodations when deciding whether to permit employees to take bereavement leave?

Most jurisdictions do not require employers to provide any type of bereavement leave — paid or unpaid. However, under Title VII, an employer is required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices, unless doing so would cause undue hardship on the employer’s business. In this regard, an employer’s obligations are much like those under the ADA. Typical accommodations to religious practice include modifying a dress code in order to permit an employee to wear religious apparel, allowing an employee to take breaks in order to engage in prayer, or altering work schedules to grant days off for religious holidays.

In the case decided last month, Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, the Seventh Circuit extended the concept of religious accommodation to possibly cover attendance at a relative’s funeral. Specifically, in the Adeyeye case, an employee requested several weeks’ unpaid leave in order to participate in his father’s funeral in Africa. Most employers, like Heartland Sweeteners, grant only a few days off to attend a funeral of a close relative. Here, the employee sent two letters to the company, explaining that it was mandatory for him to attend this funeral, and that unless he performed certain rituals, including slaughtering five goats, “death will . . .come and take away” his and his sibling’s lives. This request was denied, and the company fired the employee after he left and went to the funeral anyway.

The trial court dismissed the employee’s subsequent religious accommodation lawsuit, agreeing with the employer’s argument that it had not been given any notice that a religious issue was involved. However, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision, sending the case back to the trial court. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit court concluded that a jury may find that the two letters provided sufficient notice of a religious accommodation request. According to the court, the letters’ references to compulsory attendance at a “funeral ceremony” and “funeral rite” and the reference to potential death of family members if the ceremony was not performed sufficiently conveyed a religious aspect to the request. The court concluded that although these religious beliefs may not be as familiar as some modern American practices, the law protects all sincerely held religious beliefs, and if the company had questions as to whether the request was religious, it could have asked the employee for further explanation.

Although the trial court’s ultimate treatment of this case remains to be seen, employers should take note of the issues raised by the court’s finding an association between religious accommodation and a request to attend a funeral. For example, when an employee asks for time off to attend a funeral, to what degree can or must an employer inquire as to the nature of the funeral and the employee’s potentially spiritual reasons for wanting to attend? What about the “modern American practices” referred to by the court — is there any assumption that more “familiar” funerals are by definition religious? Likewise, the case described a situation where the employee wanted to attend his father’s funeral. It is unclear how this holding would impact an employee’s desire to attend a religious funeral for a non-family member. As these questions are far from settled, employers should proceed with caution when evaluating bereavement leave policies and individual employee requests for time off due to a death.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ