The Great Pumpkin – Creed or Personal Belief?
It’s Halloween season. This is a time for candy, costumes, spiderwebs and pumpkins. And of course, it’s also the time for the annual Halloween movie-fests. In my case, this includes 30 minutes in front of my television to watch the classic Peanuts cartoon - It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
If you are like me, you grew up watching the Peanuts gang bob for apples and go trick-or-treating for candy and, if you are Charlie Brown, rocks, while Snoopy battled the Red Baron over the fields of France in his Sopwith Camel. But above all else, this Halloween classic is a lesson given by Linus Van Pelt on the existence of the Great Pumpkin.
For Linus, Halloween is a sacred night. He believes that on October 31st, “… the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch and flies through the air with his bag of toys for all the children.” [i] And while his friends and family don’t share his belief and say the Great Pumpkin is a fake (even his own sister ridicules him), Linus remains steadfast. Sure, he’d like Sally, or anyone, to join him in the pumpkin patch for his vigil; but he continues to believe regardless. He has no doubt that the Great Pumpkin will rise and appear, so long as the pumpkin patch he sits in is “sincere” enough. And while that doesn’t happen on the Halloween Night lived out in the cartoon special (or any other time mentioned in the Peanuts comics), Linus remains steadfast and assures Charlie Brown that his faith is not shaken:
“Just wait ‘til next year, Charlie Brown. You’ll see. Next year at this same time, I’ll find a pumpkin patch that is real sincere and I’ll sit in that pumpkin patch until the Great Pumpkin appears. He’ll rise out of that pumpkin patch and he’ll fly through the air with his bag of toys. The Great Pumpkin will appear… and I’ll be waiting for him! I’ll be there. I’ll be sitting there in that pumpkin patch… and I’ll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait and see, Charlie Brown.”[ii]
Of course, Linus was about 7 years old when the television special first aired and in 2021 Linus would be 69 years old. That said, I can still imagine that Linus continues to patiently wait each Halloween for the Great Pumpkin to pick his local pumpkin patch to rise and greet his follower(s). But, now grown up, Linus likely also has a job and sitting in a pumpkin patch and awaits the great gourd’s arrival for an entire evening, or overnight, may not fit with his work schedule. He may very well need to request a modified work schedule so that he can continue with his annual practice. This, of course, raises the all-important question: Is Linus’ belief in the Great Pumpkin protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) as a creed, and would his employer be required to accommodate him and grant his request?
What is creed?
Section 5 of the Code prohibits discrimination in employment, in part, on the basis of creed. That said, "creed” is not a defined term in the Code. Instead, creed is a term that has come to be defined by courts and tribunals which use it to refer to both an individual’s religious beliefs and practices and the non-religious beliefs that “substantially influence a person’s identity, worldview and way of life”. For guidance, the Human Rights Commission (the “OHRC”) has identified the following characteristics to be considered in determining whether a belief system is a creed under the Code:
Is the belief system sincerely, freely and deeply held;
·Is it integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment;
Is it a particular, comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs the individual’s conduct and practices? The Commission has held that personal preferences or singular beliefs do not amount to a creed for the purposes of the Code [iii];
Does the belief system address ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence; and
Does the belief have some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief?[iv]
Based on everything we know about Linus, albeit from one 30-minute program and the occasional later reference in the comics and the 2015 Peanuts movie, I would argue that Linus’ belief in the Great Pumpkin is a creed under the Code.
His belief in the Great Pumpkin is certainly sincerely, freely and deeply held. He has, at least since the age of 7, foregone the tradition loved by most children of trick-or-treating and receiving bags full of candy and chosen instead to sit alone in a pumpkin patch all night long. On the one occasion during the night when he slips and refers to the existence of the Great Pumpkin as a possibility rather than a certainty, he is distraught and immediately corrects his mistake by exclaiming “Good grief, I said if. I meant when he comes! I’m doomed. One little slip like that can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by”;[v]
Linus appears to be sound in his belief and ties his happiness and joy, at least on Halloween, with the mere possibility of greeting the supernatural jack-o-lantern;
The evidence shows that his belief governs his individual practice. Not only is this the “time of year” to write to the Great Pumpkin, but he then attends in the pumpkin patch to keep watch for the great gourd’s arrival;
Linus believes there is a supernatural being, the Great Pumpkin, which is all-knowing and is a source of good fortune (toys and presents) for the children of the world; and finally
His belief, though perhaps not shared by the majority of the Peanuts gang, does appear to have a connection to shared beliefs of others. Examples are found on November 1, 1961 when Charlie Brown confirms in the comic strip that the Great Pumpkin appeared in “a very sincere pumpkin patch owned by someone named Freeman in New Jersey”, and in 2008 when Milhouse is visited by the “Grand Pumpkin” in the 2008 Simpsons episode, Treehouse of Horror XIX.
Therefore, silly as it may seem to some (after all, it comes from a cartoon), Linus’ belief in the Great Pumpkin seems to meet each of the OHRC’s criteria and is, on close examination, characteristic of many mainstream religious traditions, including Christianity.
Is Linus’ employer obligated to accommodate Linus’ request not to work on Halloween Night?
Having passed the threshold and established there is a creed in this case, we move on to assessing Linus’ request not to work on Halloween Night; that is, his request for accommodation.
To determine whether Linus is entitled to accommodation requires more than simply finding that he is connected to a creed. Not every action taken in relation to one’s creed is automatically entitled to protection[vi]. The request must be tied to his creed-related needs. For this reason, Linus’ employer is entitled to inquire whether attendance in a pumpkin patch is “materially significant” or only “peripherally connected” to his creed. Personal preferences are not protected under the Code and do not have to be accommodated. However, sincerely held beliefs, including an honest belief that sitting in a pumpkin patch overnight is of material significance to one’s belief in the Great Pumpkin, should generally be accepted in good faith and accommodation, to the point of undue hardship, provided.
Importantly, whether an individual’s belief system is a creed under the Code is not dependent on others believing the individual’s beliefs are right or that their practices and conduct under that belief system are “normal”. This was specifically addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada when it stated in Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36[vii]:
“… the demand for tolerance cannot be interpreted as the demand to approve of another person’s beliefs or practices. When we ask people to be tolerant of others, we do not ask them to abandon their personal convictions... Learning about tolerance is therefore learning that other people’s entitlement to respect from us does not depend on whether their views accord with our own.”
Employer Takeaways:
The Great Pumpkin may not rise in my pumpkin patch to bring toys this year, but it has brought reminders of some important accommodation lessons for employers:
Remember that the duty to accommodate has both a procedural component (the process, ie. ask questions to determine whether a duty to accommodate exits) and a substantive component (the accommodation provided, if any);
Employers should take all requests for accommodation in good faith, unless there is clear evidence that the request is not genuine. Not knowing of or understanding the employee’s stated creed does not negate the employer’s obligation to engage in the accommodation process;
Request for information to fulfill the procedural component of the duty to accommodate should be limited to what is required to establish (i) whether the duty to accommodate is engaged (is the employee’s belief sincerely held and connected to a creed); and (ii) assess the employee’s needs, limitations and restrictions to make the accommodation, if any; and
Finally, remember that the duty to accommodate does not necessarily mean that an employer you must provide the employee with their preferred form of accommodation.
Whatever you believe, and however you celebrate this October 31st, I wish you a Happy Halloween.
***
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2H0TfvNU3w
[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7jreYc2gY
[iii] http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-policy-statement-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-and-proof-vaccine-certificates
[iv] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed.
[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSIQzwIPzQ, at 2:20.
[vi] For those wondering how this relates to the OHRC policy statement on COVID-19 vaccine mandates and proof of vaccine certificates (see (iv), above), we have, in Linus’ case, established that there is a creed. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccination, the OHRC has not only determined that a singular belief against vaccinations does not amount to a creed, but it is also confirmed that the duty to accommodate is not paramount. “It can be limited if it would significantly compromise health and safety amounting to undue hardship – such as during a pandemic.”
[vii]2002 SCC 86 (CanLII) at paragraph 66.
