Government agencies contemplating changes to their calendars should avoid scheduling holidays that observe or promote a religious holy day. The Constitution prohibits government action to promote a particular religion, and a government agency may not close simply to promote the celebration of a religious holy day. For example, in Metzl v. Leininger, the court struck down an Illinois statute establishing Good Friday as a state holiday for the express purpose of “commemorat

[ing] the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.” 57 F.3d 618, 623 (7th Cir. 1995). This ruling strongly suggests that government agencies are prohibited from instituting a school holiday to celebrate Bodhi Day (Buddhism), Ash Wednesday (Christianity), Diwali (Jainism, Sikhism, and Hinduism), Ridvan (Baha’i), or any number of other religious holy days.

Instead, an agency’s decision to close on a particular day must be made with a clearly secular purpose. For instance, the Fourth Circuit upheld a school district’s decision to close school on the Friday before and Monday after Easter because of the high rate of absenteeism expected on those days and the increased cost to the school district of hiring substitute teachers for those days. Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 1999). In addition, courts have consistently stated that it is permissible for a governmental body to give a vacation day to provide a break in the work calendar, even if the break falls on an obvious religious holy day. See, e.g. Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765, 766–67 (upholding Hawaii’s decision to make Good Friday a holiday to give a longer spring break and promote recreational activities and shopping); Metzl, 57 F.3d at 623 (“Had Illinois made a forthright official announcement that the public schools shall be closed on the Friday before Easter in order to give students and teachers a three-day spring weekend, rather than to commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, we might have a different case.”).

In the case of school districts and colleges, the traditional two-semester calendar, with a break that happens to fall around Hanukah and Christmas, is permissible as a natural break between academic terms. Also, Texas law specifically requires a school district to excuse a student from attendance for the purpose of observing religious holy days. Tex. Educ. Code Section 25.087(b)(1)(A). The student must be permitted a reasonable time to make up missed school work, and the absence shall be counted as a day of compulsory attendance. Id. Section 25.087(d). Therefore, if a student wishes to miss school for the specific purpose of celebrating a holy day, he or she may do so under the Texas Education Code without penalty. This is presumably to accommodate the myriad of possible religious holy days celebrated in a diverse society.

In conclusion, government agencies should not specifically consider the religious observances of specific individuals or groups. Rather, agencies setting a holiday schedule should apply non-religious criteria such as projected absenteeism, the need for breaks throughout the year, and the increased cost of opening an agency during certain times of the year.

Prepared by the offices of Richard Abernathy, this article should not be construed as legal advice related to any specific facts or circumstances. Although this article covers legal subjects, it is intended to educate readers and not to provide advice that will be the basis for action or inaction in any specific circumstance. Viewing these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, P.C. and the reader or the reader’s institution. For circumstance-specific legal advice, please directly contact a licensed attorney.