Are all religious holidays created equal?

One might think that the paid holidays an employer chooses to offer its employees is a matter for the employer and its employees. However, when Tyson Foods announced that Labor Day would be replaced with Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday in its Shelbyville, Tennessee, plant, the response from the public was swift and harsh. The change came as a result of negotiations with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, after which both Tyson and the union agreed that the change would be good for the Shelbyville plant.

After all, Tyson had required its employees to work on Labor Day for the past 23 years, yet so many employees took off work for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr last year that the plant nearly had to shut down that day, according to union representative Randy Hadley. The contract was put to a general vote before it was finalized, and 80 percent of the union employees voted to accept the contract (approximately 1,000 of the Shelbyville plant’s 1,200 workers are unionized).

Still, the public was outraged by the agreement. Tyson was inundated with phone calls and e-mails decrying the decision. Countless commenters on blogs and online news sites questioned whether Tyson and the union had “forgotten 9/11” and asserted the change as an example of Muslims trying to infiltrate American culture. Many called for a boycott of Tyson products.

Soon after the initial announcement, Tyson announced that it had reached a new agreement with the union effectively reversing the previous agreement. Labor Day was reinstated as a paid holiday, and instead of providing Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday, employees were given a paid “personal holiday,” which can be used for a day of the employee’s choice, upon supervisor approval. The personal holiday replaces the employee’s birthday as a paid holiday at the Shelbyville plant (of course, employees still may request their birthday as their personal holiday).

The public response to Tyson’s initial announcement may be disheartening to employers. It can be hard enough negotiating benefits packages with employees — particularly when a union is involved — without having to consult the public as well. The response also may be confusing: Why should nonemployees care what holidays an employer provides?

Some critics claimed that it wasn’t appropriate for an employer to offer religious holidays because it could open the door for any religious group to demand its own paid holiday. You may be wondering, “What about Christmas?” The typical response from these critics is that Christmas doesn’t count as a religious holiday because of its secular aspects that have transcended religion. Fine. But what about the employers who provide Good Friday as a paid holiday?

Connecticut Human Resource Reports’ most recent “Employee Benefits Survey” shows that approximately 65 percent of Connecticut employers mandate Good Friday as a paid holiday. The New York City School System provides paid holidays for Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, and the first two days of Passover. Notably, there has been no widespread public outcry concerning these religious paid holidays.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination, may inspire an employer to ask, “If we provide a paid holiday for one religion, do we have to provide it for all religions?” At this point, the answer to that question is unclear; however, it seems unlikely that courts would interpret Title VII to impose such a requirement regardless of the employer’s circumstances.

As mentioned above, many employers already provide paid holidays for certain days of religious significance and not others. In many cases, it’s simply good business sense and good employee relations to provide a paid holiday for a day that 80 percent of employees want to take off. Hopefully employers will retain the discretion to make decisions that are best for them and their employees — even where those employees are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Kimberly Klimczuk is an associate with Skoler, Abbott & Presser, P.C. a labor and employment law firm based in Springfield, Massachusetts. She is a graduate of the Duke University School of Law and received her B.A. in Mathematics and Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Kimberly is a contributing author to the Massachusetts Employment Law Letter.

• Massachusetts Employment Law Letter
  Excerpted from Massachusetts Employment Law Letter, and written by attorneys at the law firm of Skoler, Abbott, & Presser. MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER does not attempt to offer solutions to individual problems but rather to provide information about current developments in Massachusetts employment law. Questions about individual problems should be addressed to the employment law attorney of your choice. Contact attorneys at Skoler, Abbott, & Presser.