Death is Inevitable. Grieving is Universal. Bereavement Leave is Neither.

How could a grief-informed approach guide bereavement leave policies that enhance support for bereaved workers, while addressing the needs of estate fiduciaries?

A policy analysis of American bereavement leave practices, providing recommendations to strengthen workplace support, informed by the lived expertise of grieving workers and subject-matter data, with particular focus on grievers with fiduciary responsibilities.

Master’s Thesis Project: Cassidie Carmen Bates, Master of Public Policy, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, Class of 2026

Original Research Presented To: Grieve Leave

Faculty Advisor: Anna Gassman-Pines, PhD, Professor, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy

Publication Date: April 21, 2026

Disclaimer: This student paper was prepared in 2025 and 2026 in partial completion of the requirements for the Master’s Project, a major assignment for the Master of Public Policy Program at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. The research, analysis, and policy alternatives and recommendations contained in this paper are the work of the student who authored the document, and do not represent the official or unofficial views of the Sanford School of Public Policy or of Duke University. Without the specific permission of its author, this paper may not be used or cited for any purpose other than to inform the client organization about the subject matter. If applicable, the author relied in many instances on data provided by the client and related organizations and makes no independent representations as to the accuracy of the data.

Proper attribution to the author is required for reproduction or use.

Bates, Cassidie Carmen (2026). “Death is Inevitable. Grieving is Universal. Bereavement Leave is Neither.” Master's project, Duke University. www.cassidiecarmenbates.com/thesis

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my dad, John Michael Bates, for his unconditional love while here on earth, and whose loss inspires my research. Missy, my constant companion. Rebecca Feinglos for embracing my interests and generously welcoming me into the world of grief work. The Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, for supporting me throughout my research journey and for providing opportunities to learn and share beyond the classroom. The Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano for offering me a tremendously supportive bereavement leave experience when I lost my dad. To all those in my lineage whose paths did not allow them to pursue their passions, but whose journeys made mine possible. And my sincerest gratitude to all who shared their expertise and experiences of grief with me as I crafted this research - y’all are the subject-matter experts.

“Grief is a natural human instinct, and there’s nothing shameful about it.” - Cicero 1

Executive Summary

Abstract

In the United States, bereavement leave is not federally mandated, resulting in inconsistent and often insufficient support for employees following the death of a loved one. This policy analysis examines how a grief-informed approach, defined as integrating lived expertise with subject-matter research, can guide the development of bereavement leave policies that better support workers, with particular attention to those with fiduciary responsibilities, such as estate executors. This research also situates this policy gap within a broader cultural context in the United States in which grief and death are often under-discussed in public discourse, suggesting that meaningful policy development depends in part on a greater willingness to acknowledge and engage with experiences of loss openly.

This research draws on qualitative interviews with more than 25 subject-matter experts, a comprehensive literature review, and an analysis of federal, state, and employer-level policies to assess the current bereavement leave landscape and identify existing gaps. Findings demonstrate that grief has significant cognitive, emotional, and economic effects on employees, particularly within the first three to six months following a loss, while most existing leave policies remain limited in duration, scope, and accessibility. The research also highlights the substantial and often overlooked responsibilities of estate executors, who may spend hundreds of hours managing post-death administrative tasks that extend well beyond standard leave periods.

The analysis further indicates that inadequate bereavement support is associated with decreased workplace productivity, increased healthcare utilization, and higher employee turnover rates, resulting in costs for both workers and employers. In response, this study proposes policy recommendations to inform more effective bereavement leave structures, including flexible and non-consecutive leave, expanded definitions of family, paid leave options, and additional accommodations for employees with fiduciary responsibilities. Rather than advancing a one-size-fits-all solution, the findings support context-dependent and incentive-based approaches that balance employee needs with employer capacity. Collectively, this research demonstrates that grief-informed bereavement policies can better align workplace practices with the realities of loss while improving outcomes for employees and organizations. See Appendix A for a complete Definition of Terms utilized in this report.

Introduction

Death is a universal and inevitable human experience, which means that grieving is guaranteed to each of us. When someone close to us dies, the grief journey is catalyzed. As this research illustrates, grieving takes a significant toll on our lives; it can alter our executive functioning, workplace performance, and overall physical and mental health, and affect our social dynamics, among a plethora of other facets. Although grieving the loss of a loved one can be a lifelong experience, its immediate physical and psychological effects are considerable and often go unmet in the workplace.2 It is common practice in the U.S. for employers to provide employees with three days of unpaid leave following the death of an immediate family member; however, this leave is entirely discretionary and not legally required, leaving many grieving Americans without any assured support for this inevitability.3

In the United States, no federal laws require employers to provide their employees with bereavement leave (BL), which is a type of paid or unpaid leave following the death of a family member.4 Existing federal legislation, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), explicitly excludes bereavement leave as an allowable reason to take unpaid leave from work.5 In fact, only five states have codified a state-level bereavement leave policy.6 The absence of federal bereavement leave policies in America, combined with the lack of existing state-level mandates, results in companies across the nation not being obligated to provide paid or unpaid time off from work for employees when they experience a loss.7 Although some employers nationwide voluntarily provide three to five days of bereavement leave, access is typically limited to immediate family losses. It remains unguaranteed, as no federal mandate requires employers to offer such leave.

Additionally, some grieving workers also inherit fiduciary responsibilities when their loved one passes away. This paper utilizes the term estate executors broadly to encompass executors, trustees, and other roles who act as fiduciaries for the estate, while acknowledging the legal distinction among these roles. Executors are the appointed person(s) by the now-deceased individual to carry out their final wishes and settle remaining financial matters, in addition to a myriad of other duties; and these duties are granted through a will.8 On average, executors spend over 570 hours completing necessary executorship tasks.9 The entire estate settlement process is usually dispersed over the course of 16 months for the average estate, underscoring the additional and prolonged duration of executorship responsibilities.10

Furthermore, the need for robust bereavement leave structures is a timely issue. America is entering an unprecedented chapter where it’ll have its largest-ever senior citizen population. By 2030, all members of the Baby Boomer generation will be 65 or older, accounting for more than 20% of Americans.11 By 2029, over 12 million Baby Boomers are estimated to die, with a decline of nearly 50 million more projected in the subsequent 10 years.12 This decline will predictably lead to a strain on the U.S. workforce, with the immediate family members of these Baby Boomers likely needing to access bereavement leave upon their passing, at unparalleled rates. This demographic data provides us with key insights to enable us to take proactive measures now to be prepared for the impacts of this natural decrease pressure; where rising mortality outpaces births.13 See Appendix B for Baby Boomer Mortality Projections Based on Demographic Data.

Background

In the United States, the absence of a federally mandated bereavement leave policy has led to inconsistent, often insufficient support for employees, resulting in significant disparities in leave benefits across organizations and sectors. A common practice across U.S. organizations is to offer employees one to five days of bereavement leave, often unpaid, for the loss of an immediate family member; however, this is variable and not mandated.14 The absence of a standardized bereavement leave policy causes companies across the private and public sectors to have significant variation among employer-provided leave benefits, perpetuating a substantial disparity in the support available to working Americans following the loss of a loved one. Current bereavement policies provide an insufficient amount of time for grieving individuals to return to work as productive employees.15 As the following policy recommendations illustrate, policy solutions are not one-size-fits-all; to be effective, they must be context-dependent. Simultaneously, it’s imperative to consider the employer’s ability to remain financially solvent when offering bereavement benefits to its employees.

Research Motivation

However, in my greatest time of need, I was given bereavement leave. The sudden loss of my dad, John Michael Bates, when I was 25, changed everything for me. Because I’m an only child, and my dad wasn’t married when he passed, I was the sole executor for his estate. Actually, to be most precise, I was the executrix.16 Instantly, I became responsible for executorship duties that were all completely new to me, such as honoring my dad’s final wishes, selling his home, informing insurance and other entities of his passing, and much more. I was fortunate that the company I worked for at the time allowed me to take paid time off by using the vacation time and sick leave that I had accrued over the years.

With this support from my company, I had the capacity to undertake the time-intensive responsibilities of executor. I fully settled the estate, hosted my dad’s funeral with over 200 guests, and identified a plan to address my own grief. After nearly three months, I returned to my company. I was still deeply grieving the loss and experiencing several somatic effects of grief. Still, I was incredibly grateful for the time they gave me to be an executor, which allowed me to return to work and meaningfully contribute. I processed some of the immediate grief in this time frame. Still, I can see retrospectively how much I compartmentalized so I could prioritize the estate settlement during my bereavement leave. This experience revealed how limited our infrastructure is for supporting grieving Americans, particularly in the workplace, and just how privileged I was to be at a company that was so accommodating during my loss.

As the subsequent research demonstrates, this type of bereavement leave is incredibly rare in America. Although my experience was profound, current social safety nets do not adequately reflect the full impacts associated with the inevitability of us all experiencing loss. I’ve dedicated my graduate research to bereavement leave policies in the United States, to effectively advocate for grief-informed systems that would benefit each of us, including the distinctive needs of estate fiduciaries.

“Grieving, in short, is a privilege in America.” - Dr. Megan Shen 17

Policy Question

The policy research question: How could a grief-informed approach guide bereavement leave policies to enhance support for bereaved workers, while addressing the needs of estate fiduciaries, is presented to Grieve Leave. Grieve Leave is a for-profit online community-building organization that provides resources on grief, aims to normalize the conversation about death and bereavement through storytelling, its blog, and the Grief’d Up podcast. Founded in 2021 by Rebecca Feinglos, MPP, Grieve Leave will utilize these policy recommendations to inform its bereavement leave advocacy efforts in North Carolina.

This report synthesizes findings across three categories:

Integrating the qualitative evidence from lived expertise: for bereavement leave policies to be grief-informed,18 those who have experienced the death of a loved one should be integrated at each phase of the policy process. Lived expertise,19 which I think of as the inherent knowledge and insights that an individual possesses on a certain subject matter because they’ve lived it, is critical in the development and implementation of grief-informed policies.20 This policy approach ensures that bereavement leave structures are informed by the lived experiences of those they’re intended to serve, alongside subject-matter expertise.
This report provides a landscape analysis of current bereavement leave policies across America, or in some cases, the lack thereof. By conducting a gap analysis between what the lived and subject-matter expertise suggest as adequate bereavement leave structures and existing bereavement practices, specific recommendations emerge to guide best practices. However, as with any sustainable and effective public policy, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It’s imperative to tailor bereavement leave policies to the employer's financial solvency and capacity, while simultaneously recognizing that each employee's loss is unique.
Effective bereavement leave structures have the potential to support all grieving workers; however, those with fiduciary responsibilities to their loved one’s estate, such as executors, have additional commitments they must deliver on. This research examines the specific needs of grieving workers who are also fiduciaries, leading to clear, actionable steps that enable executors to navigate these legal duties during bereavement leave.

“Grief is not a medical disorder to be cured. Grief is not a spiritual crisis to be resolved. Grief is not a social woe to be addressed. Grief is, simply, to be felt in our hearts and our minds and our bodies.”

- Dr. Joanne Cacciatore 21

Bereavement Leave

Fundamentals

The purpose of bereavement leave is currently defined as: allowing time for grieving, managing funeral and memorial arrangements, traveling if necessary, and addressing legal and personal responsibilities associated with a death.22 Bereavement leave is not mandated by federal law, and only California, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington have enacted specific BL laws. California, Illinois, and Oregon’s state-level BL policies apply to both public and private sector employers.23 While Maryland’s only applies to the private sector, and Washington’s only applies to public sector state employees.24 The public sector is an entity or organization that is owned and operated by the U.S. government, either on the federal, state, or local level, and generally provides services to the U.S. public by using available tax dollars.25 The private sector is an entity owned and operated by individuals or groups not affiliated with the U.S. government, and usually aims to generate profit. Private sector employees are generally subjected to the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal legislation that establishes and protects workers’ rights (i.e., minimum wage).26 For the vast majority of the country, beyond these five states, bereavement leave policies are up to the discretion of the employer, who is not required to provide any bereavement leave to their employees.27

Although BL practices vary widely, some common themes have emerged in the bereavement leave policies currently offered nationwide. Commonly, bereavement leave policies are centered around the death of a qualifying family member; the relationship between the employee and the person they’ve lost may determine the employee’s eligibility to utilize BL. Most bereavement leave policies only allow that policy to be utilized for the death of immediate family members, including spouses, children, parents, and siblings. In some cases, employers may extend eligibility to include extended family, such as grandparents, grandchildren, in-laws, and other members of non-immediate family.28 More broadly, this has been defined as those who are closely related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption.29 Bereavement leave is already uneven in its distribution among employers, and it’s even more uncertain if an employee could access this type of leave for the death of an extended family member; a non-immediate or chosen family member with a non-biological or non-legal familial relationship that’s recognized for its emotional and/or caregiving significance.30

There is no uniform standard for the duration of bereavement leave in the U.S. Typical employer-provided BL ranges from one to five days, depending on the employer’s Human Resources (HR) policy and on the employee’s relationship to the deceased.31 Bereavement leave may be a formal employee benefit offered by the company, or employers may offer unpaid leave, or permit the use of accrued sick or vacation time (commonly referred to as Paid Time Off: PTO) to cover bereavement periods. Nationally, BL is not categorized as job-protected leave; time away from work where the employee’s job is legally protected during their absence, originating from a qualifying reason, though not necessarily paid. The employer cannot fire, demote, or remove other benefits for the employee taking the leave, and the employee should expect to return to their original or equivalent position once the leave ends.32 Variation in leave policies creates significant disparities among grieving Americans, especially among low-wage, contract, or hourly workers who may be unable to afford unpaid time off.33

Origins

Bereavement leave in the United States originated primarily through union negotiations and labor contracts, rather than federal legislation.34 Bereavement leave did not exist in early industrial America, and workers who attempted to take time off for a funeral risked termination or reduced wages.35 Following World War II, some unions negotiated provisions for their members to be eligible for leave to attend funerals, typically ranging from one to three days and generally limited to immediate family members.36 These initial implementations over 80 years ago largely mirror the modern bereavement leave standards in America, and reflect the prevailing workplace norms, especially of the post-war era, that recognize grief as a private matter, not a protected labor condition.37 It appears that bereavement leave was initially funeral leave, yet as the modern interpretation of BL has broadened to address more aspects of grief and estate responsibilities, the typical three-day allocation has not increased accordingly. From available information on the origins of bereavement leave, it’s apparent that its development is not grief-informed; the standard three-day norm, which is still largely observed, is not rooted in subject-matter data or expertise on the needs of grieving workers.

Significance and Timeliness

Given that death is inevitable and grieving is universal, accessing bereavement leave is something each worker will likely experience at some point in their career. The feasibility and effectiveness of bereavement leave policies being enacted at the federal or state levels, or on an employer-by-employer basis, is something that’s explored later in this paper. The lack of existing bereavement leave policies in America does not demonstrate their unimportance; in fact, the opposite is true. The absence of uniform, effective, and adequate bereavement leave policies has led to significant economic loss to employers and bereaved Americans going unsupported. In America, unsupported employee grief costs businesses nationwide a combined $225 billion annually.38 Additionally, the current lack of bereavement leave structures that align with the needs of grievers immediately following a loss leads to considerable lost productivity that costs over $75 billion annually.39 Beyond the economic ramifications of bereavement structures that are not grief-informed, bereaved employees may physically return to work soon after their loss, but research indicates that they are not productive or thriving in their workplaces.40 94% of grieving employees reported difficulty concentrating at work after their loss, and 78% of grieving employees reported not feeling supported in their workplace.41 Beyond the economic ramifications of inadequate grief-informed bereavement structures, 51% of employees will choose to depart from their workplaces within a year of their loss, largely due to feeling unsupported during their bereavement.42

Additionally, America is entering a chapter of having its largest senior citizen population yet. Over 73 million Baby Boomers, or one in five Americans, are living in the United States as of this writing.43 The entirety of the Baby Boomer generation will be over the age of 65 by 2030; this inevitably means that America will also experience a surge of deaths.44 It’s projected that 60 million Baby Boomers could pass away by 2040, leading to an unprecedented impact on our workforce when the younger generations (likely the children, grandchildren, next-of-kin, etc. of the Baby Boomers) need to access bereavement leave, and for some, to act as executors for the deceased person’s estate.45 America’s demographic data and trends are evidence-based and provide a concrete foundation for population projections. This data enables policymakers to design proactive, anticipatory bereavement leave policies rather than reactively respond once workforce and economic effects are already felt.

Specifically, as it pertains to estate executors, it is well-documented that the average executor spends over 570 hours completing necessary executorship tasks.46 Considering this in the context of bereavement leave, which is typically one to five days (i.e., 8 to 40 hours maximum), if offered at all, is over 500 hours less than that amount of time that is reasonably necessary for executors. This lack of grief-informed bereavement policies that are considerate of the needs of executors is a leading cause of executors taking over 16-42 months, as a national average, to settle one person’s estate.47

The shortfall among bereavement leave policies is especially significant when considering the needs of executors, who often require additional time to complete estate-related tasks. Collectively, these factors underscore the need for policies that are informed by those who have experienced the death of a loved one, in combination with available data, given that grief will inexorably affect us all.

Taking all of this together, policymakers, whether in the legislative sector or in leadership roles at the company-wide level, have the opportunity to implement proactive bereavement structures. For these bereavement policies to be grief-informed, they would be rooted in demographic data and subject-matter expertise regarding mortality and grief in the United States. Beyond the qualitative insights, demographic data is a dependable quantitative predictor of the future that allows for productive policy implementation, based on anticipated trends.48

“[Grief] isn’t something that you get over. It becomes a part of who you are… It becomes a part of how you understand the world.” - Dr. Mary-Frances O’Connor 49

Landscape Analysis

This section outlines the current status of bereavement leave policies and practices nationwide. Identifying the specifics of existing bereavement practices is crucial to understanding where gaps exist and what implementations can be made.

Federal Policy Landscape

At the federal level, there is no legislation mandating bereavement leave in the private sector, and it’s not uniformly required throughout the public sector either.50 Employers retain full discretion over whether to offer leave, the amount of time granted, and whether the leave is paid. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets regulations such as minimum wage for employees in the public and private sectors, does not require employers to provide paid bereavement leave.51 This lack of a federal standard places the onus on individual states and employers to define protections for grieving employees.52

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the primary federal leave policy in the U.S., does not allow bereavement as a covered category.53 FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave for certain medical and family caregiving needs, including the birth of a child or serious illness of a family member, but explicitly excludes leave following the death of a loved one.54 Some state-level family or medical leave laws have sought to adapt or expand bereavement leave policies beyond the federal baseline established by FMLA; those policies are detailed in this report. However, states cannot amend the federal FMLA itself, and the original statute does not cover grief-related absences.

History of Notable Federal Legislative Proposals

Over the last two decades, legislative efforts have sought to establish bereavement leave protections at the federal level, though few have advanced beyond legislative committees, and none have become law.

Sought to amend FMLA to provide leave for immediate relatives of service members killed in action. Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; it did not advance out of committee and was not enacted. 55
Would have amended FMLA to allow up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave following the death of a child. Despite bipartisan support, neither the House nor the Senate version passed. H.R. 1560 was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, but no further action was taken, and S. 2935 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and was not enacted.56
H.R. 856, authored by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (D-VA), and its companion bill, S. 274, authored by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), seek to offer up to 12 weeks of paid leave for family and medical reasons, potentially including bereavement, but that’s still unconfirmed as of this writing. As of the 2025-2026 legislative session, both the House and Senate versions remain in committee referral status and have not advanced.57

U.S. Military Service Members

From March 2023 to March 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022 offered paid bereavement leave for U.S. military service members under specific circumstances. Some key provisions of this policy were that eligible service members were entitled to up to two weeks of paid bereavement leave following the death of a spouse or child. This policy was retroactively applied to deaths occurring on or after June 25, 2022, and remained in effect until March 29, 2025. Service members with fewer than 30 days of accrued leave could still be granted bereavement leave, unit commanders were empowered to grant leave quickly and sensitively to minimize the burden on grieving families, and bereavement leave could be combined with other forms of chargeable and non-chargeable leave, including emergency leave and convalescent leave.58

Federal Civilian Employees

Federal civilian employees, those who work for the federal government but are not members of the United States military, do not have a distinct bereavement leave category. However, various forms of existing leave can be used for grieving purposes:59

Sick Leave (5 U.S.C. § 6307): may be used for funerals, emotional distress, and logistical arrangements following the death of a qualifying family member. Employees may use up to 104 hours (13 days) annually for general family care and bereavement. Additional leave may be granted if the employee has sufficient accruals.60 Annual Leave: employees may elect to use accrued vacation time for bereavement purposes. Approval is typically required unless emergency leave is justified.61 Leave Without Pay (LWOP): employees without sufficient paid leave may request unpaid leave, though approval is at the supervisor’s discretion.62

Parental Bereavement Leave (5 U.S.C. 6329d)

The Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act also created a new, standalone parental bereavement leave benefit for federal civilian employees to take up to two weeks (80 hours) of paid leave, following the death of their child (qualifying son or daughter definitions apply).63 This benefit is limited to two weeks within a 12-month period, and employees must take the leave consecutively.64

In summary, the federal landscape of bereavement leave in the United States is highly fragmented, with no universal statutory protections for private-sector employees and only limited, narrowly defined leave options for certain federal and military personnel. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) explicitly excludes bereavement, and proposed federal legislation over the past two decades has largely failed to create lasting protections. Existing policies for federal civilian employees and service members provide some paid leave. Still, these benefits are restricted to specific circumstances, such as the death of a spouse, child, or other qualifying family members, and often require leave to be used consecutively or in combination with other leave types. Overall, the United States has no federal law mandating bereavement leave for private-sector employees, and available federal or military leave benefits remain limited in scope, duration, and eligibility.

    
      Types of Leave for Federal Civilian Employees
    

    
      
          Type of
Leave
          Sick
Leave
          Annual
Leave
          Leave
Without Pay
          NDAA 2022
Leave
        


      
          Usage of
Bereavement
          Funeral,
arrangements,
grieving
          Personal
discretion
(funeral/travel)
          If no other leave
available
          Child loss
only
        

          Paid?
          Paid
          Paid
          Unpaid
          Paid
(2 weeks)
        

          Limit
          104 hrs/year
(can be
extended)
          Based on accrual
(13-26 days)
          Supervisor
discretion
          1 occurrence
/year
        

    
  

“...grief remains largely ignored in American work culture and legislation despite its inevitability and ubiquity.” - Katherine Hanson, Marquette Law Review 65 66

State-Level Bereavement Leave Policies

Given the absence of a federal BL policy, five U.S. states have independently enacted bereavement leave policies. As of this writing, California, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington mandate that employers offer some form of bereavement leave under certain conditions. Some of these state laws only apply to public sector employers, while some only to the private sector, and others apply to both.67

As of this writing, legislation is pending in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont to codify or expand bereavement leave policies.68 In North Carolina, an executive order took effect on July 1, 2025, that provides up to 40 hours of paid BL for full-time state employees following the loss of an immediate family member, and up to eight hours of leave following the death of a colleague.69 Additionally, there’s pending legislation in North Carolina to codify this bereavement leave for state employees, which was originally established through an executive order.70

As of January 1, 2023, employers in the public and private sector, with five or more employees, must provide up to five days of unpaid bereavement leave per deathof a qualifying family member (this policy defines family more broadly than the existing ‘immediate family’ definition, and includes: spouses, parents (including in-laws), children, grandparents, grandchildren, and domestic partners).71 The leave does not have to be taken consecutively, but it must be taken within three months of the death. Employees must have at least 30 days of employment service before taking the leave.72 See Appendix C for a full case study on California’s job-protected bereavement leave law.
The Family Bereavement Leave Act mandates that employers with 50+ employees in the public and private sectors must provide up to two weeks (ten workdays) of unpaid leave, which can be extended up to six weeks for multiple losses or reproductive health losses.73
Employers in the private sector, with 15+ employees, must permit the use of paid accrued leave for the death of a spouse, parent (including stepparent), or child.74 Separately, highly specific bereavement leave legislation was introduced in Maryland in 2025 for state employees to access following the death of a colleague who died on the job.75
Under the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA), private and public sector employers, with 25+ employees, must provide two weeks of unpaid leave per death, up to four weeks per year. Oregon was the first state in the nation to mandate BL.76
Under the Paid Family and Medical Leave program, public sector employers must allow an employee up to seven days of paid leave following the death of a child.77

    
      Existing Statewide Bereavement Policies
    

    
      
          State
          Public or Private
Sector
          Amount time off
given
          Paid or Unpaid
        


      
          California
          Public & Private
Sector
          Up to 5 days
          Unpaid
        

          Illinois
          Public & Private
Sector
          10 work days but
can be extended up
to 6 weeks
          Unpaid
        

          Maryland
          Private Sector
          Accrued leave
          Paid
        

          Oregon
          Public & Private
Sector
          2 weeks up to 4
weeks per year
          Unpaid
        

          Washington
          Public Sector
          Up to 7 days
          Paid
        

    
  

In summary, state-level bereavement leave policies in the United States remain limited, inconsistent, and highly variable. Only five states currently mandate leave, with differences in eligibility, duration, pay status, and which employers are covered. Some laws apply exclusively to public-sector employees, others to the private sector, and others encompass both. While a few states expand coverage beyond immediate family, many grieving employees are still excluded, and pending legislation in several states highlights ongoing efforts to address these gaps. Overall, state-level policies provide important protections for some workers, but the fragmented and uneven landscape leaves the majority of American employees without standardized job-protected bereavement leave.

Impact on American Employers

The patchwork nature of bereavement leave in the United States leaves most grieving workers dependent on employer-provided benefits rather than statutory protections. In states without bereavement mandates, employer practices vary widely, and beyond the five states mentioned in this analysis, leave is entirely discretionary. This variability places employers in the role of primary gatekeepers of grief-related leave, requiring them to balance operational needs with employee well-being in the absence of clear regulatory guidance. Given the pervasive impact of grief on job performance, it is in both the employees’ and employers’ best interests to provide sufficient bereavement leave.78 To further complicate matters, there is no standardized national dataset tracking bereavement leave, resulting in fragmented statistics and metrics across sources.

Bereavement leave consistently ranks among the top five most important employee benefits across genders, racial groups, and other identities.79 Approximately 90% of employers nationwide voluntarily provide some form of bereavement leave for immediate family losses,80 but additional time off is often drawn from earned PTO or sick leave, if available to that employee, or taken as unpaid leave.81 Less than 3% of employers provide more than six days of bereavement leave to their employees. A 2024 survey of over 620 organizations found that 24% of American employers anticipate the need to revise their company’s bereavement leave policies, either by increasing the number of days offered or by expanding the scope of eligible leave circumstances.83

While the majority of employers offer some form of bereavement leave, the concentration of policies within the three-to-five-day window suggests that leave duration has not evolved to reflect the broader realities of grief, including administrative responsibilities such as estate settlement. The lack of grief-informed bereavement leave not only places a burden on employers, who must navigate these policies when an employee experiences a loss, but also compounds the challenges faced by bereaved employees.

“American law is ill-equipped for workplace grief. Bereavement, while medically “normal,” lacks a substantial foothold in workplace benefits and in the law. Currently, organizations bear the burden of developing their own policies—and where available, these policies remain insufficient to accommodate the myriad logistical and emotional complexities associated with the loss of a loved one.” - Katherine Hanson, Marquette Law Review 84

Research Method and Design

To answer the question: “How could a grief-informed approach guide bereavement leave policies that enhance support for bereaved workers, while addressing the needs of estate fiduciaires?”, a qualitative research approach was utilized. This approach enabled me to stratify my research findings into three categories:

Defining the concept of grief-informed
Identifying what model bereavement leave policies could entail
Outlining the specific needs of estate executors within bereavement leave structures

This research design emphasizes the lived expertise policy model, in which the subject-matter expertise that individuals have gleaned from their personal grief experiences is incorporated as qualitative findings. The goal of this model is to produce policy recommendations that reflect the needs of those the policies would serve.

There is relatively limited publicly available quantitative data regarding bereavement leave, including how often it’s utilized or requested. This data gap is logical because, with no standardized or mandated bereavement leave policy in the country, tracking its use wouldn’t necessarily exist. Furthermore, only a few existing statistics speak to the needs of bereaved estate executors. However, the limited quantitative data on the need for and social desire for bereavement leave provide a relevant framework for the policy question. These statistics are cited throughout this research, but the research will not utilize quantitative methods.

The number of qualified individuals who, based solely on their professional and academic backgrounds, can speak to grief-informed bereavement leave policies and the needs of estate executors is relatively limited. There are a select number of organizations in the United States whose work specifically addresses bereavement leave or executorship needs, and my outreach to each of these companies has yielded my initial list of recommended interviewees. These recommendations were combined with the list of additional interviewees I compiled based on my research and review of subject matter experts.

Interviewees were selected through convenience sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with these cross-sector professionals whose work directly or indirectly intersects with grief, bereavement, or executorship. Speaking directly with these individuals, who have a uniquely informed perspective on grief, bereavement, and executorship, has shaped the current landscape of these topics, helped me identify gaps, and guided proposed solutions. The semi-structured nature of these interviews allowed the conversations to flow organically and enabled the interviewee to feel comfortable sharing their own grief experience. A snowball method was also used, allowing interviewees to refer other interview subjects who could enhance this research. Additionally, throughout the interviews, information on specific companies with model bereavement leave policies emerged, leading to case studies of these organizations’ bereavement leave practices.

These qualitative insights, bolstered by a comprehensive literature review on grief, bereavement, and executorship, informed my recommendations for structuring bereavement leave policies that are both grief-informed and effective in meeting the unique needs of estate executors.

Source of Data and Information

The goal of this qualitative approach is to better understand the three elements of my research question:

The current status of bereavement leave policies in the United States, at the federal, state, and employer levels
What are the specific needs of estate executors when it comes to bereavement leave
What qualifies a bereavement policy as grief-informed

To recruit the sample for these semi-structured interviews, I emailed all potential interviewees, including approximately 35 individuals and organizations, to invite them to participate. If they were willing, I set up a 30-60-minute Zoom meeting based on their availability. With each interviewee's consent, the meetings were recorded using Otter.ai to assist with interview transcription, allowing me to be fully present.

Following the interviews, I analyzed the findings with open coding, focused coding, and second-cycle coding. First, findings were sorted into three domains: grief-informed content, bereavement leave policy insights, and topics related to estate executors. Second, the findings were further delineated into three additional categories: context and information about the current landscape of these topics, current gaps within that landscape, and proposed recommendations for policymakers.

Once I had evaluated these three categories, I contextualized the findings based on the interviewees' professional backgrounds and lived experiences. Finally, I synthesized what the interviews indicated about how grief-informed bereavement practices can effectively meet the needs of American workers, and especially estate executors. Emergent themes and concepts that arose during interviews were noted and integrated into the contextualizing process when possible. Some of these themes catalyzed very compelling supplementary areas of analysis; however, due to the academic constraints of this research, not all are fully included in this paper.

Interviewees

To most effectively answer the research question, I conducted over 25 live interviews with subject-matter experts. I interviewed America’s most prominent and some globally recognized thought leaders and experts in the field of grief. These professionals span various, yet relevant career sectors, and many of whom also maintain lived experience with grief and bereavement leave themselves.

My intention for each conversation was to structure it enough to use our time most effectively, while also being organically designed so the interview could flow to topics beyond my outlined questions. Using this method, more than 96% of interviewees openly shared their lived experience of grief. Each interview was professional and productive, with an element of vulnerability where the interviewee and I connected on how our own losses and grief have inspired us to pursue this career field.

An inductive finding that emerged was that over 92% of all the subject-matter experts I interviewed had personally experienced a profound loss, which inspired their pursuit of grief or grief-adjacent work. This finding reinforced my own lived experience, where I transitioned into grief work following the sudden loss of my dad, and substantiated how the field of grief work appears to be comprised of professionals who are pursuing a career that’s highly intertwined with their lived experiences.

I asked each interviewee to speak to the following topics:

How would they define the concept of grief-informed
To describe their work and how it intersects with grief, bereavement, and/or executorship
What is their/their organizations’ theory of change as it pertains to model bereavement leave in America
1. How would they define a model bereavement leave policy
What should policymakers consider regarding bereavement leave policies
What specific attributes of a model bereavement leave policy accommodate estate executors
What, if any, is their grief-related lived experience
1. What motivates them to pursue this work
Is there anything I have not asked you that you’d like to address

See Appendix D for the full interview template.

The appendix includes a comprehensive list of everyone contacted for an interview, as well as biographies of all individuals and organizations with whom I conducted interviews and who consented to be publicly named. Some interviewees opted to remain anonymous and requested that their names not be cited in this paper. I would like to highlight some of the most impactful interviews for this research (in no particular order):

Dr. Joanne Cacciatore: Author, Professor in the field of traumatic grief at Arizona State University, Founder of the MISS Foundation and Selah Carefarm, and bereaved mother.
Dr. Sasha Hamdani: Author, Board-certified psychiatrist, and bereaved daughter.
Joyal Mulheron of Evermore: Public Policy Expert, Founder of Evermore, and bereaved mother.
Dr. Donna Schuurman of Dougy Center: Author, Former CEO, and current Senior Director of Advocacy and Education at Dougy Center, globally-recognized authority on child, teen, and family grief, and bereaved daughter.

See Appendix E for the full roster of all the subject-matter experts that were contacted and interviewed for this research.

Findings

Based on this research, the following findings have been compiled. First, core themes are presented. Then, findings are further stratified into the three categories of the research question:

Exploring the concept of grief-informed
Identifying the gaps within the current bereavement leave landscape and clearly articulating what a model bereavement leave structure could entail
Determining the unique needs of estate executors and how those components can be incorporated into a model bereavement leave framework

core themes

The overall themes that emerged clearly demonstrate that current bereavement leave structures are not grief-informed and have not been founded on data-backed criteria. Furthermore, compared with other areas of social and labor policy, research on BL in America is lacking. Grief and the needs of bereaved workers, especially those with fiduciary responsibilities, can be challenging to research. These difficulties are rooted in the fact that each individual's grief journey is variable based on their inherent vulnerabilities before the loss they’re grieving. Although experiencing the death of a loved one and grief are intrinsic human experiences, how an individual processes the grief and moves forward is intertwined with their baseline status before grief.

Additionally, a broader theme that emerged from this research is that normalizing public and institutional conversations about grief is a necessary step toward developing policies that adequately respond to its impacts. In many of my interviews, subject-matter experts described America as a “death-avoidant society.” Without greater cultural openness to acknowledging grief as a predictable and universal experience, bereavement leave policy risks remaining underdeveloped and misaligned with the realities of loss in the workplace.

Concept of grief-informed: Integrating the qualitative evidence from lived expertise in combination with subject-matter data on grief

Research shows that grief can most significantly affect a bereaved employee's workplace performance in the first three to six months following the loss. This finding indicates that this is the most crucial time frame for a bereaved employee to receive grief-informed support in the workplace. Research indicates that beyond the six-month mark, a majority of employees do not require substantial workplace accommodations, a finding that may reassure employers that grief-informed support does not imply permanent or ongoing accommodation.
- Traumatic grief: The intensity of acute grief can be particularly disruptive for individuals experiencing traumatic loss. Although this research does not specifically examine traumatic grief, this population represents an important subset of the bereaved community with distinct needs in and of itself.
Alternatively, failing to support an employee during the first six months of their grief can be costly. Employment and hiring data demonstrate that recruiting, onboarding, and training new employees are time‑intensive processes. On average, it takes employers at least six to seven weeks just to hire a new employee, even longer for high-level positions. Employers report it taking those new employees several months post-hire to reach full productivity. Organizations also report that a substantial portion of new hires make retention decisions within the first six months, and early turnover can cost the employer the equivalent of six to nine months of the employee’s salary in recruiting, hiring, and training expenses. Therefore, it is generally more time‑efficient and cost‑effective for companies to retain existing employees by supporting them through life events such as bereavement.
Grief affects both the limbic system, which governs emotional processing, and the prefrontal cortex, which supports executive function. These neurobiological responses to loss lead to grievers experiencing challenges with concentration, a lack of effective time management, and increased errors on the job.
Healthcare costs for bereaved employees often increase following a loss, especially when the employee is not granted adequate BL for the loss. Research indicates that expenditures tend to be higher when comparing an individual’s pre-loss and post-loss healthcare use, as well as when comparing bereaved employees to their non-bereaved counterparts.
- Although U.S.-based research on healthcare costs for bereaved workers is limited, an international study that included American medical data was conducted. This research found that bereavement is associated with increased healthcare utilization, including more frequent visits to medical providers, hospitals, and greater use of medications among bereaved spouses compared with matched controls, suggesting that healthcare needs and related costs often rise following a loss.
A grief-informed culture in the workforce builds loyalty between the grieving worker and the employer. Beyond bereavement leave itself, how employers engage with and support their grieving employees when at work is fundamental to how productive that employee is at work, and the loyalty they feel towards the company.
An aspect of trauma-informed care may encompass the experiences of and support needed by grievers; however, the concept of grief-informed is standalone and unique. Interviewees spoke to how trauma-informed care is taught in their respective disciplines of healthcare, counseling, and academia; however, grief-informed care is not a standard part of their education or training. To respond effectively to grief in our lives and workplaces, we need grief-specific education.
- Lived expertise in bereavement policies: Those with experience with grief are central in the creation and successful implementation of grief-informed bereavement leave policies. This framework ensures that eventual policies are reflective of the needs of those they’re intended to serve.

In summary, the concept of grief-informed enables bereavement leave policies to be guided by the lived expertise of those who have experienced grief, in combination with subject-matter data. These findings underscore how grief has measurable cognitive, emotional, and economic impacts on employees, particularly within the first three to six months following a loss, and that providing targeted, time-limited workplace support during this period can improve employee well-being, productivity, retention, and associated organizational costs.

Identifying the gaps within the current bereavement leave landscape and clearly articulating what a model bereavement leave model could entail

To be eligible for most existing bereavement leave policies, employees are typically required to take leave immediately following a loss and to use it consecutively. This structure can be misaligned with the realities of grief, as research suggests that the need for time away from work often extends beyond the immediate aftermath of a death. Requiring consecutive leave limits an employee’s ability to return to work as they are able while still taking time off for ongoing loss-related responsibilities and grieving. Research shows that the flexibility built into bereavement leave policies is just as important as the total number of days employees are allowed to take off. Additionally, consecutive leave implies a culture in which rituals and tasks associated with the death occur immediately following the passing. This is not true for all cultures and again underscores a lack of grief-informed BL structures.
Although policy reform is sometimes achieved through federal, state, or local-level legislation, employers don’t want more business regulations, so mandating bereavement leave may not be the most effective approach. In particular, employers may be hesitant to adopt new statutory leave requirements due to concerns about administrative burden, operational flexibility, and the financial implications of expanded paid leave obligations, especially for small and mid-sized organizations with limited staffing capacity. These considerations indicate that while legislation can play an important role in setting baseline standards, alternative policy mechanisms may be more feasible for encouraging broader adoption of bereavement leave benefits across diverse employer contexts.
A one-size-fits-all bereavement model is not the most effective approach to successful BL integration. Each company in America has such drastically varied resources, operational demands, etc., that a uniform bereavement leave policy would not be tailored enough to be sustainable and effective upon implementation.
Due to the absence of mandated bereavement leave and the observed norm of three unpaid days being inadequate in many scenarios, employees rely on other forms of accrued time off when they experience a loss. Paid or unpaid leave, such as vacation or sick leave, is commonly used to cover an employee's absence when a loved one passes away. However, this only occurs in instances where an employee has accrued time off and when the employer allows the employee to utilize that time off.
Grief resources and current bereavement leave structures are not reflective of all who are grieving. Presently, most BL policies apply only to the worker's immediate family members. This places companies in the role of acting as the arbitrators of who is valid for you to be grieving. Further, the current definitions of immediate family members are misaligned with an observed movement away from nuclear family structures in America.
ven when a model bereavement leave policy exists, its effectiveness depends on the broader company culture. If leadership discourages or stigmatizes taking time off, whether generally or specifically for grief, employees may feel unable or unwilling to use their leave. For bereavement policies to function as intended, they must be supported by a workplace culture that genuinely encourages and normalizes taking time to grieve.
Many grievers may experience financial setbacks due to the loss. This is especially well-documented when someone loses a spouse or when the person who passed incurred a significant amount of medical expenses before their death. Unpaid leave amplifies this financial burden, especially for grievers who may already be lower-income earners.

In summary, the findings highlight persistent structural and cultural limitations within the current bereavement leave landscape when compared to what a model framework would require to support grieving employees meaningfully. Existing policies are often rigid, mandating consecutive, immediate leave in ways that do not reflect the nonlinear, extended, and culturally variable nature of grief. At the same time, the absence of comprehensive federal guidance has resulted in a fragmented system shaped by employer discretion, where access to leave, its duration, and its quality vary widely. This inconsistency is further reinforced by the impracticality of a one-size-fits-all approach, given differences in organizational capacity. Yet, it underscores the need for baseline standards that still allow for flexibility in implementation. In practice, many employees rely on accrued vacation or sick time to manage loss, revealing a gap between existing provisions and a model system in which dedicated bereavement leave is accessible and sufficient. Restrictive definitions of qualifying relationships continue to exclude significant forms of grief, reflecting outdated assumptions about family structure. Even where policies are in place, workplace culture can limit their effectiveness if employees feel discouraged from taking leave. Finally, reliance on unpaid leave amplifies the financial consequences of loss, particularly for more economically vulnerable workers, underscoring the importance of designing bereavement leave policies that are both flexible and financially protective.

Determining the unique needs of estate executors and how those components can be incorporated into a model bereavement leave framework

As previously mentioned, the average executor experiences a time-consuming responsibility, spending over 570 hours completing necessary executorship tasks. Executors need additional support to understand the order of operations and how to prioritize responsibilities related to the estate. Many of these duties need to be handled during business hours, leading to grieving workers with fiduciary responsibilities to an estate, needing additional bereavement leave flexibilities from their workplaces.
Grief, as it shows up in our societal infrastructure, is a sector that a single industry doesn’t necessarily “own”. Within that, executorship is an even more non-descript field, where very limited resources are available to executors regarding estate settlement. This is also a role that many people suddenly find themselves in, and they need time and support to calibrate to these newfound responsibilities. As it pertains to bereavement leave frameworks, the impact that executorship duties have on grieving workers has the potential to impact their capacity to perform their typical job functions.
The non-linear nature of grief and the uniqueness of each grieving person's experience are components of this research that make it more challenging to quantify. However, executorship is a more measurable process, with clearly defined action items that, in most cases, have a total completion date. The quantifiable character of executorship may provide employers with a concrete and definitive timeline to base bereavement leave on.
A previous finding stated that model bereavement leave policies should not be mandated to be taken consecutively; however, the unique needs of executors may vary here. Although non-consecutive leave is still demonstrated to be a core component of model bereavement policies, many executors do need to access their BL immediately following the loss to handle some of the initial and timely legal responsibilities that are required of them. Beyond the immediate need for executors to access BL urgently and consecutively, the findings overwhelmingly demonstrate the importance of BL being flexible overall and not mandating that all grieving workers take bereavement leave immediately following the loss.

In summary, the findings indicate that estate executors represent a distinct subgroup of grieving workers whose needs are not fully captured in existing bereavement leave frameworks. Executors face a substantial and time-intensive workload, often requiring engagement during business hours and creating immediate tension between professional responsibilities and fiduciary duties. The role is further complicated by a lack of accessible guidance, leaving many individuals to navigate complex legal and administrative processes while grieving. At the same time, executorship introduces a more structured and measurable set of responsibilities, which may offer employers a clearer basis for designing leave policies than the broader, nonlinear experience of grief. While flexible, non-consecutive leave remains a core principle of the model bereavement policy, the findings highlight that executors often require immediate, consecutive leave following a loss to address urgent obligations, reinforcing the need for policies that can accommodate both predictable task demands and the evolving nature of grief.

“Addressing the needs of bereaved Americans is essential to preventing further public health crises, when those without the resources and support they need are more likely to experience complicated grief and the many negative psychological and physical health outcomes associated with that experience…acknowledgment “is the only real medicine of grief.”...Bereavement policy must be flexible, providing a toolkit of resources that can address the diverse downstream physical and mental health consequences of grief.” -Dr. Anthony Galanos, Dr. Dalton Hughes, and Dr. Sarah Petry 125

Recommendations

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed. These recommendations aim to answer the policy research question: How could a grief-informed approach guide bereavement leave policies to enhance support for bereaved workers, while addressing the needs of estate fiduciaries? Overall, this set of recommendations is pro-employer and pro-employee. These proposed implementations seek to balance the needs of grieving workers, particularly those with fiduciary roles related to their loved one’s estate, with employers' capacity to provide bereavement leave. The recommendations draw on subject-matter data, insights from individuals with lived experience of grief, and targeted analysis of the unique needs of executors.

Grief can be a lifelong journey that requires integration into our lives; therefore, the goal of grief-informed bereavement leave isn’t to give employees time off for the duration of their grief. Rather, the goal is to support grieving workers in both the immediate phase and on an ongoing basis, so they can navigate their grief while also being supported in returning to work and meaningfully contributing. The recommendations suggest that model bereavement leave should be robust enough for grieving employees to return to work as functional and able to perform their job functions effectively. Alongside the needs of immediate grief, the recommendations include ongoing checkpoints to ensure that grieving employees have reasonable workplace flexibilities aligned with the long-term realities of grief. Explicit recommendations are proposed for executors that acknowledge the unique responsibilities they must handle within the bereavement leave structures. Based on the synthesis of the research findings, a model bereavement leave policy should prioritize the following elements:

Flexible Time and Non-Consecutive Leave

Research findings demonstrate that the need for time away from work does not occur solely in the immediate aftermath of a loss but extends across weeks and months, as individuals navigate emotional processing, administrative responsibilities, and key moments of adjustment. As the findings demonstrate, grief is typically most acute in the first three to six months following the loss. If an employee feels adequately supported throughout this time frame, the findings suggest they’re more likely to make significant efforts to return and meaningfully contribute. Requiring consecutive leave, therefore, misaligns with how grief is experienced and can limit an employee’s ability to return to work as they are able, while still accessing support over time. This misalignment with non-flexible leave is particularly relevant for employees serving as estate executors, whose responsibilities arise intermittently and often require attention during standard business hours. By allowing leave to be taken non-consecutively within a defined period, employers can better align bereavement support with the cognitive and logistical impacts of grief, while also creating a structure that enables employees to remain engaged at work in a sustainable, productive manner.
- Various grieving styles: This non-consecutive structure would also accommodate different grieving styles, recognizing that employees do not experience or process loss in a uniform way. Some individuals, including instrumental grievers who tend to cope through action, structure, and task-focused engagement, may find it helpful to return to work relatively quickly or intermittently as a stabilizing routine. Others may require immediate and consecutive time away to process emotions privately and manage acute grief before re-engaging with workplace responsibilities. A flexible approach ensures that both patterns of grieving and those that fall between them can be supported within the same policy framework without forcing employees into a single expected timeline of recovery.

Leave Tracking in Hours Instead of Days

This hourly tracking framework supports both employee needs and employer operations. Research findings demonstrate that grief-related impacts, including cognitive strain, administrative responsibilities, and emotional processing, do not consistently require full days away from work but often arise in shorter, variable intervals. Tracking leave in hours allows employees to take partial days as needed for responsibilities such as estate-related tasks, medical appointments, or moments of acute grief, without unnecessarily exhausting limited leave resources. This structure is particularly beneficial for estate executors, whose duties frequently occur during business hours and require flexibility rather than prolonged absence. From an employer perspective, hourly tracking provides greater predictability and continuity, enabling organizations to maintain workflow while still offering meaningful support. By aligning leave structures with how grief is actually experienced, hourly tracking creates a more efficient, equitable, and adaptable system that improves employee functioning and retention while minimizing operational disruption.
- Suggested Minimum Amount of Bereavement Leave: Based on the expertise of the subject-matter professionals interviewed for this research, a minimum of 14 days (112 hours) annually was suggested as a more adequate baseline allotment for bereavement leave. This recommendation is intended to establish a meaningful floor for policy design, reflecting the reality that grief and its associated responsibilities extend beyond the very limited leave periods commonly offered. Within a model framework, 14 days or 112 hours should be understood as a minimum standard rather than a ceiling, and organizations with greater capacity may choose to offer additional time depending on their resources, workforce structure, and operational needs. This baseline can be most effectively operationalized when paired with an hourly tracking structure, which enables the total allotment to be used flexibly and responsively.

Incentivized, Not Mandated Bereavement Leave Implementation

Broad statutory implementation is not the most effective or feasible path forward, given employer concerns about added regulation, administrative oversight, and operational constraints. Mandating bereavement leave also risks generating resistance among employers, particularly small and mid-sized organizations. In turn, this may result in minimal compliance rather than the adoption of meaningful, grief-informed practices.
Instead, adoption should be encouraged through incentive structures that make participation more practical while still advancing policy goals. This incentive could include tax credits for organizations that implement grief-informed bereavement leave policies. It could also include contractual flexibility agreements, such as requiring a returning employee to remain with the organization for a defined period proportional to the leave taken, which helps offset productivity and onboarding costs.
- A tax credit incentive, in particular, could directly offset the short-term financial burden associated with providing bereavement leave. This would increase employers' feasibility while encouraging broader and more consistent uptake of grief-informed policies. This approach preserves employer autonomy while still supporting scalable implementation of flexible, non-consecutive leave structures and executor-specific accommodations across diverse organizational contexts.

Unique and Standalone Bereavement Leave

Current practices that require employees to rely on accrued PTO or sick leave to manage a loss are misaligned with the realities of grief and often create inequities in access, particularly for workers with limited or no accrued leave. This structure effectively shifts the burden of bereavement onto the employee rather than recognizing it as a distinct and predictable life event that warrants dedicated support.
Instead, bereavement leave should be treated as a separate, protected category of leave that is not subject to prior accrual. This ensures that employees are not forced to choose between income security and time to grieve or manage post-loss responsibilities. It also addresses disparities in access to paid leave, where lower-wage or newer employees are disproportionately excluded from meaningful time off when a death occurs. By decoupling bereavement leave from PTO and sick leave systems, employers can more accurately reflect the distinct cognitive, emotional, and logistical demands of grief identified in this research.
Importantly, a standalone bereavement leave structure is also strategically beneficial from both an employee recruitment and employer cost perspective. As a benefits offering, it is highly attractive to employees because it signals organizational support during one of the most significant life events a worker may experience. At the same time, it is unlikely to be used frequently across the workforce, making it a relatively low-cost yet high-impact benefit for employers. Most employees will never need to access it, but when they do, its presence can significantly shape employee loyalty, retention, and trust in the organization.
A standalone structure also reinforces the principle of grief-informed policy design, in which workplace supports are responsive to the actual conditions of bereavement rather than constrained by generalized leave categories. This approach strengthens equity, improves employee well-being, and reduces the administrative confusion that arises when employees must navigate multiple overlapping leave systems during periods of acute loss.

Broader Definitions of Qualifying Family

Current bereavement leave policies often rely on narrow, traditional definitions of immediate family, which fail to capture the full scope of meaningful relationships in employees’ lives. This approach is increasingly misaligned with contemporary family structures. It fails to adequately account for chosen family, legal guardians, close friends, and extended relational networks that may serve as primary sources of emotional and practical support. As identified in guidance from the Dougy Center, grief is not limited to legally defined relationships, and individuals often experience profound loss outside of conventional familial categories. Expanding eligibility criteria, or eliminating rigid qualifiers entirely, would allow bereavement leave to more accurately reflect lived experience and reduce the burden on employees to justify the legitimacy of their grief. It would also relieve employers of the role of arbiters of which relationships are valid enough to warrant leave, a position that can be both administratively burdensome and ethically fraught. This change would promote equity by ensuring that employees are not excluded from support based on outdated or overly prescriptive definitions of family, thereby aligning bereavement leave policy more closely with grief-informed principles.

Job Protected Leave

In many cases, bereavement leave is unpaid or not formally provided, leaving employees in a precarious position where taking necessary time off may jeopardize their employment. This dynamic compounds the effects of grief by introducing financial and professional instability at an already vulnerable time. Establishing job-protected bereavement leave would mitigate this risk and provide employees with the security needed to take appropriate time off.
From an employer's perspective, job protection also supports workforce stability and retention. Employees who are given the time and security to address their grief and related responsibilities are more likely to return to work in a focused and committed manner, reducing turnover and the associated costs of hiring and training new staff.
Job-protected leave aligns with broader findings that supporting employees during critical life events is more cost-effective than replacing them.
Job protection is particularly important for estate executors, whose responsibilities often extend beyond the typical bereavement period and require engagement during standard business hours. As a result, bereavement leave frameworks should incorporate extended, job-protected leave provisions for employees with fiduciary responsibilities. This ensures that executors can fulfill their legal and administrative duties without risking their employment, while also reinforcing a more comprehensive, grief-informed approach to workplace policy.

Paid Leave

Current practices, which often offer only two to five days, fall short of addressing the cognitive, emotional, and logistical demands associated with bereavement. When paid leave is limited or unavailable, employees are frequently forced to rely on accrued paid time off or take unpaid leave, creating inequities and placing a disproportionate burden on those with fewer financial or leave resources.
Providing dedicated paid bereavement leave allows employees to step away from work without financial penalty during a period of acute distress. The reassurance of paid leave is particularly important given well-documented evidence that grief disrupts concentration, decision making, and overall work performance, especially in the immediate aftermath of a loss. Access to paid leave reduces the likelihood that employees will return to work prematurely or attempt to maintain productivity while actively grieving, both of which can have negative consequences for individual well-being and workplace performance.
From the employee perspective, paid bereavement leave functions as a critical form of economic and psychological stability. It ensures that individuals are not forced to choose between income security and the time needed to manage loss, funeral arrangements, and family responsibilities. This support can mitigate stress during an already vulnerable period and contribute to a more sustainable transition back to work.
From the employer's perspective, offering paid bereavement leave is a targeted, cost-effective investment in workforce stability. Because bereavement leave is used infrequently across the employee population, it typically imposes limited recurring costs while delivering significant benefits in moments of high need. These benefits include improved employee retention, reduced turnover, and stronger organizational commitment. Employees who are supported during periods of loss are more likely to return to work engaged and productive, reducing longer-term disruptions to performance.
At the same time, this approach is not one-size-fits-all. Financial solvency and organizational capacity will vary, and employers differ in their ability to absorb the costs associated with paid leave. A model policy should therefore establish paid bereavement leave as a clear standard while allowing flexibility in duration and implementation to ensure it remains sustainable across diverse organizational contexts.
A best practice would therefore establish paid bereavement leave as a guaranteed entitlement, ensuring that all employees have access to a minimum level of compensated time away following a loss. While the specific duration of leave may vary across organizations, the central principle remains: paid time away is essential to aligning workplace expectations with the realities of grief while simultaneously advancing both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.

Additional Provisions for Estate Executors

Executors face a substantial workload, spending an average of 570+ hours completing estate-related tasks. Many of these responsibilities, such as legal filings, financial coordination, and administrative processes, must be conducted during standard business hours. The nature of this scheduling creates an inherent conflict for grieving employees, who are often required to balance full-time work obligations with time-sensitive fiduciary duties.
Providing additional time and flexibility during business hours is, therefore, a critical component of supporting employees with executorship responsibilities. Beyond the volume of work, executorship also involves a significant learning curve. Individuals are frequently placed into this role with little prior experience and limited access to clear, centralized guidance. As a result, employees must simultaneously navigate grief and acquire the knowledge necessary to fulfill complex legal and administrative obligations. This dual burden can significantly impair their ability to perform regular job functions without adequate workplace accommodation.
From the employee perspective, access to additional and flexible bereavement leave enables individuals to manage both the immediate and ongoing demands of estate administration. Executors often require time off immediately following a loss to address urgent legal and procedural requirements, many of which are time sensitive and must be handled consecutively. At the same time, estate responsibilities extend well beyond the initial bereavement period, reinforcing the importance of flexible, non-consecutive leave that can be used as needed over time. This combination of immediate access and ongoing flexibility helps reduce stress, prevent burnout, and support a more effective resolution of estate matters.
From the employer's perspective, executorship introduces a more structured and quantifiable dimension to bereavement leave policy design. While grief itself is highly individualized and difficult to standardize, executorship consists of defined tasks and, in most cases, a general timeline for completion. This structure provides employers with a clearer framework for determining appropriate leave durations and structuring accommodations. Offering targeted support for employees with fiduciary responsibilities can improve productivity, reduce prolonged disruptions, and support smoother transitions back to work by allowing employees to address critical responsibilities promptly.
At the same time, this approach is not one-size-fits-all. Financial capacity, workforce structure, and operational demands will vary across organizations. A model policy should therefore establish provisions for additional executor-specific leave and flexibility while allowing employers to tailor implementation in a way that remains sustainable. Safeguards such as documentation requirements, defined parameters for consecutive and intermittent leave, and coordination with management can help balance employee needs with organizational continuity.
A best practice would therefore incorporate a distinct provision for employees with fiduciary responsibilities within bereavement leave frameworks, emphasizing both immediate access to consecutive paid leave following a loss and the ability to use additional leave flexibly over time. This structure recognizes executorship as a unique and labor-intensive extension of bereavement, while leveraging its measurable characteristics to support more precise and effective policy design that benefits both employees and employers.

Grief-Informed Support Beyond Bereavement Leave

While paid bereavement leave is a foundational component of workplace support, it does not fully address the varied ways employees experience and process grief upon returning to work. Employees differ meaningfully in grieving style, support preferences, and functional capacity during bereavement. As a result, a singular or standardized approach is insufficient to meet the complexity of need. A model framework must therefore be understood as broader than leave alone, integrating multiple forms of support that operate alongside formal time away from work.
One effective approach is to develop a “menu” of bereavement support options, allowing organizations to provide meaningful assistance that reflects both employee needs and institutional capacity. In addition to paid leave, this menu may include access to Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), financial support for funeral or estate-related expenses, informal and structured check-in practices, and other low-cost yet high-impact interventions. This sliding scale model acknowledges that organizations vary significantly in their ability to offer extensive paid leave or formal benefits, while still reinforcing that meaningful bereavement support can be delivered through multiple channels. This approach is consistent with findings from practitioner interviews, which emphasize the value of flexible and adaptable supports in practice (Lindsey interview; Heather interview).
Leadership and managerial training are a central component of a grief-informed system. Training equips managers and colleagues to recognize signs of distress, respond with empathy, and adapt supervisory practices to better support grieving employees. Grief-informed education includes an understanding that grief is not linear, that employees may not explicitly request support, and that needs may evolve. As highlighted in practitioner accounts, grieving employees may also demonstrate different support needs based on their grieving styles, reinforcing the importance of managerial awareness and flexibility in responding to diverse workplace experiences (Charlene interview). Regular, intentional check-ins further support this approach by maintaining connection without placing pressure on employees to disclose more than they are comfortable sharing.
The integration of EAPs and related resources further strengthens this broader support system. Counseling services, mental health supports, and referrals to external providers play an important role in facilitating emotional recovery. In addition, access to practical expertise, such as estate planning professionals, grief counselors, or funeral service advisors, can reduce the administrative and cognitive burden often associated with loss. These supports extend the organization’s role beyond time off, reinforcing a more holistic model of employee wellbeing.
Support should also extend to the return-to-work process. Grief does not conclude with the end of a leave period, and employees may continue to experience cognitive, emotional, and functional impacts long after they resume their roles. Flexible return-to-work arrangements, including phased schedules, remote work options, or temporary workload adjustments, can ease this transition. Embedding structured check-ins and clearly communicating available resources as part of reintegration helps normalize ongoing support while minimizing stigma or reluctance to seek assistance.
From an employer's perspective, a grief-informed approach beyond leave represents both a cultural commitment and an operational investment. While implementation requires intentional design, many components, including training, communication practices, and flexible management, are relatively low-cost. At the same time, these practices can improve employee engagement, reduce presenteeism, and strengthen retention by fostering a workplace culture of trust, responsiveness, and care.
At the same time, this approach is not one-size-fits-all. Organizational capacity, financial resources, and workforce structure will inevitably shape how these supports are implemented. A model framework must therefore prioritize flexibility, allowing employers to combine high- and low-resource interventions in ways that align with their specific constraints and capabilities. Importantly, this includes allowing space for case-by-case discretion, recognizing that in many instances it is more effective to offer additional support than to risk under-supporting an employee during acute grief.
A best-practice model, therefore, positions bereavement leave as only one component within a broader grief-informed support system. When combined with managerial training, accessible resources, flexible work arrangements, and ongoing communication, organizations are better equipped to respond to the full spectrum of employee needs following a loss, advancing both individual well-being and long-term organizational resilience. This integrated approach reflects a multifaceted, sliding-scale model of support, one that recognizes the diverse capacities of organizations while maintaining a shared commitment to supporting employees through an inevitable and profoundly challenging life experience.

DYnamic Offerings

However, it is neither realistic nor necessary for every organization to implement all elements in full. Workplace policies have never operated as a one-size-fits-all solution, and bereavement policy design must similarly reflect variation in financial solvency, workforce structure, and operational capacity.
The purpose of this framework is not to establish a rigid or exhaustive standard, but to provide a set of guiding components that organizations can draw on to develop their own approach. Employers may adopt these elements in whole or in part, prioritizing those that are most feasible and impactful within their specific context. For some, this may mean offering a more robust paid leave period. For others, it may involve emphasizing flexibility, managerial training, or access to support resources where financial constraints limit the availability of direct compensation.
From the employee perspective, even partial implementation of these components can significantly improve the experience of navigating loss while maintaining employment. Access to any combination of paid time off, flexibility, and supportive workplace practices can reduce stress, support emotional well-being, and enable a more sustainable return to work.
From the employer's perspective, this approach allows for meaningful engagement with bereavement support while maintaining operational and financial stability. By selecting and scaling policy components based on available resources, organizations can provide thoughtful and effective support without overextending their capacity. Lower-cost interventions, such as structured check-ins, flexible scheduling, and grief-informed management practices, can complement or enhance more resource-intensive benefits where available.
Ultimately, a model bereavement policy should be understood as a flexible framework rather than a fixed prescription. The goal is to encourage organizations to do the best they can with the resources they have, using these components as a guide to build policies that are both compassionate and sustainable. Even when all elements cannot be fully realized, incremental adoption of these practices represents meaningful progress toward better supporting employees through an inevitable and challenging life experience.

Conclusion

This research was guided by the central policy question: How could a grief-informed approach guide bereavement leave policies to better support bereaved workers and address the needs of estate executors? In working toward that question, this report synthesizes findings across three core components: This report synthesizes findings across three categories:

Exploring the concept of grief-informed
Identifying the gaps within the current bereavement leave landscape, and clearly articulating what a model bereavement leave structure could entail
Determining the unique needs of estate executors and how those components can be incorporated into a model bereavement leave framework

Across all three components, the findings point to a consistent and significant gap between what currently exists and what is actually needed to effectively meet the needs of grieving workers, particularly those with fiduciary roles to their loved one’s estate. Most bereavement leave structures today are built around short, consecutive blocks of time, narrow definitions of family, and the expectation that grief fits neatly into a brief absence from work. In practice, this assumes a level of predictability and containment that simply does not reflect how grief unfolds. The origins of bereavement leave have been demonstrated not to be rooted in subject-matter data or in a grief-informed manner. As the findings show, the most disruptive period of grief for workplace functioning is often not confined to the immediate days following a loss. Instead, it extends across the first three to six months, where cognitive load, emotional strain, and logistical demands intersect in ways that directly affect an employee’s ability to work as they normally would.

When set against that reality, the limitations of current policy design are difficult to ignore. A system that requires consecutive leave, relies heavily on accrued PTO or sick time, and restricts eligibility based on narrow definitions of family does not reflect the realities and inevitabilities we’ll all experience at some point. The current bereavement leave landscape also creates uneven access to support, particularly for employees who may not have sufficient accrued time or whose grief falls outside traditional definitions of immediate family. These gaps are further intensified for estate executors, who are often balancing full-time work with legally and financially time-sensitive responsibilities that cannot simply be postponed or compressed into a short leave window.

The model proposed in these policy recommendations responds directly to this disconnect. It reframes model bereavement leave as a flexible, non-consecutive, and tracked in hours, rather than rigid blocks of days, with a baseline of paid, job-protected time that recognizes grief as a legitimate and predictable life disruption. It also introduces executor-specific considerations, acknowledging that this group requires both immediate access to leave and ongoing flexibility in the longer term, given the structured demands of estate administration. Just as importantly, it extends the scope of bereavement support beyond leave itself, emphasizing the need for ongoing workplace practices such as managerial training, return-to-work flexibility, and check-ins that reflect the reality that grief does not end when leave does.

Ultimately, what this gap analysis makes clear is that the issue is not simply the length of bereavement leave, but the framework itself. Current systems are built around containment, while grief operates through extension, interruption, and return. A grief-informed approach asks workplaces to design for that reality rather than around it. In doing so, it shifts bereavement policy from something time-boxed and procedural to something responsive, humane, and structurally aligned with both the lived experience of loss and the operational realities of work.

“Nothing is more human than death. If death could be ripped out of you and spirited away, you’d be more god than human. The name “human” wouldn’t really fit you, since you’d be skipping the most universal and characteristically human experience.” - Cicero

Appendices

Appendix A: Definitions of Terms

This paper utilizes the term estate executors broadly to encompass executors, trustees, and other roles who act as fiduciaries for the estate, while acknowledging the legal distinction among these roles:

A person(s) appointed, usually by the now-deceased individual before their death, to carry out the wishes of the deceased person, manage their assets, pay off any debts or taxes, distribute any remaining property to potential beneficiaries, in addition to a myriad of other duties. These duties are granted through a will.
- Executrix: An antiquated, yet presently utilized, legal term that specifically references a female executor.
Similar to an executor, a trustee is an individual or entity appointed, typically by the person who created the trust, to manage and carry out that person’s wishes as outlined in the trust. Where an executor is appointed through a will, a trustee is appointed through a trust, and a trustee may begin managing assets during the trust creator’s lifetime and continue after their passing. Trustee’s responsibilities can include managing trust property, paying any debts or taxes owed by the trust, and distributing assets to the beneficiaries according to the trust’s terms.
Employer-provided time off from work following the death of a qualifying family member or loved one. The purpose of this leave includes allowing time for grieving, managing funeral and memorial arrangements, traveling if necessary, and addressing legal and personal responsibilities associated with a death.
The relationship between the employee and the person they’ve lost that may determine the employee’s eligibility to utilize BL.
- Immediate Family: Typically includes a spouse, parent, child, or sibling. Some states or employers' definitions may also include grandparents, in-laws, and domestic partners. More broadly, this has been defined as those who are closely related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption.
- Extended Family: Also referred to as non-immediate or chosen family: a non-biological or non-legal familial relationship recognized for its emotional and/or caregiving significance.
Differentiates between employer-funded time off (Paid Bereavement Leave) and leave taken without compensation (Unpaid Bereavement Leave).
Time away from work where the employee’s job is legally protected during their absence, originating from a qualifying reason, though not necessarily paid. The employer cannot fire, demote, or remove other benefits for the employee taking the leave, and the employee should expect to return to their original or equivalent position once the leave ends.
Policy implementations that are informed by the lived experiences of those who have experienced loss and acknowledge the psychological, physical, spiritual, and logistical toll of grief.
The credible knowledge gleaned from the direct lived experience of an individual. This insight can be utilized as effective qualitative data and ensure policies are informed by those they’d impact.
An entity that is owned and operated by individuals or groups that are not affiliated with the U.S. government, and usually has the goal of generating a profit. Private sector employees are generally subjected to the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal legislation that establishes and protects workers’ rights (i.e., minimum wage).
An entity or organization that is owned and operated by the U.S. government, either on the federal, state, or local level, and generally provides services to the U.S. public by using available tax dollars.

Appendix B: Baby Boomer Mortality Projections Based on Demographic Data

Baby Boomer Mortality Projections

To estimate how many Baby Boomers (Boomers) will be approximately the U.S. average age of death (78.4 years) or older by 2029, this analysis uses the demographic data available at the time of this paper’s publication. The Baby Boomer generation includes individuals born between 1946 and 1964, spanning 19 birth years.

The age distribution of Baby Boomers in 2029 includes the youngest Boomers (1964) being 65 years old and the oldest Boomers (1946) being 83 years old. Thus, the cohort will range in age from 65 to 83 in 2029. Individuals 78 or older in 2029 were born between 1946 and 1951, covering 6 birth years. The total number of Baby Boomers, as of the publication date of this paper, that are projected to be alive in 2028 is approximately 60 million.

To estimate the 78+ year old subpopulation, this projection treats all birth year cohorts of Boomers as being equal in size:

Hello, World!

Further, to adjust for higher mortality among older birth years, the oldest third of Boomers will likely represent 20–25% of the surviving population by the late 2020s.

Hello, World!

Therefore, as of the publication date of this paper, the final estimate of how many Baby Boomers are projected to be age 78 or older by 2029, after adjusting for higher mortality among older Boomer cohorts, is approximately 12-15 million Boomers.

Contextual Note on Life Expectancy

As of 2026, the U.S. life expectancy at birth is 78.4 years. This age is an average, not a fixed age of death, and many individuals survive beyond it, including those in the Baby Boomer cohort.

Appendix C: Case Study: California Bereavement Leave Law (California Family Rights Act, AB 1949)

Overview: California became one of the first U.S. states to mandate job-protected bereavement leave when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1949 into law in 2022, taking effect on January 1, 2023. This legislation amended the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to include up to five days of bereavement leave following the death of a qualifying family member (family defined more broadly than the existing ‘immediate family’ definition, and includes: spouses, parents (including in-laws), children, grandparents, grandchildren, and domestic partners).

Key Provisions:

Employees must have worked at least 30 days before taking the leave.
Applies to all private sector and public sector employers with five or more employees.
Up to five unpaid days per death of a qualifying relative (defined as a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent-in-law).
The leave must be completed within three months (90 days) of the death.
Leave is unpaid, but employees may use existing paid leave balances (i.e., vacation or sick time).
Employers may request documentation such as a death certificate or funeral program.

Rationale: The policy was introduced in response to the lack of legal protection for bereavement in the U.S., particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which heightened national awareness of grief-related challenges. Proponents advocated that the absence of guaranteed leave unfairly penalized grieving workers, particularly in low-income and hourly positions.

Implementation Challenges:

Smaller businesses have expressed concern over administrative burdens and productivity impacts.
Many employees remain unaware of their rights, and enforcement is reliant on complaints filed with the California Civil Rights Department.
The law does not cover non-traditional family structures beyond the specified relationships.

Impact:

The policy represents a shift toward acknowledging grief as a workplace issue, aligning with public health findings on the mental and physical toll of bereavement.
California’s law is now cited in policy debates in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and other states considering bereavement protections.
The lack of mandatory paid leave may limit the law’s utility for low-wage workers who cannot afford unpaid time off.

Conclusion: California’s AB 1949 recognizes the gap in labor protections by granting employees time to grieve without fear of job loss. While the policy is a step forward in normalizing grief-informed workplace policies, its long-term success will depend on effective implementation, consistent enforcement, and future amendments that may include paid leave and more inclusive definitions of family.

Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview Template

For this research, I conducted over 25 live interviews with subject-matter experts. My intention for each conversation was to structure it enough to use our time most effectively, while also keeping it organically designed so the interview could flow to topics beyond my outlined questions. Using this method, more than 92% of interviewees openly shared their lived experience of grief. Each interview was professional and productive, with an element of vulnerability where the interviewee and I connected on how our own losses and grief have inspired us to pursue this career field.

- Introductions, overview of research motivation and scope, provide any relevant background information and context
- How would they define the concept of grief-informed
- To describe their work and how it intersects with grief, bereavement, and/or executorship
- What is their/their organizations’ theory of change as it pertains to model bereavement leave in America
  - How would they define a model bereavement leave policy
- What should policymakers consider regarding bereavement leave policies
- What specific attributes of a model bereavement leave policy accommodate estate executors
- What, if any, is their grief-related lived experience
  - What motivates them to pursue this work
- Is there anything I have not asked you that you’d like to address
- Thank you, and next steps

Appendix E: Full Roster of all Subject-Matter Experts Contacted and Interviewed, Interviewee Biographies are Included

Interviewees (in chronological order of interview occurrence):

Professor of Medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Associate Professor in the Duke University School of Nursing, Faculty Associate in the Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities, and History of Medicine, Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, and Associate of the Duke Initiative for Science and Society.
Dr. Galanos has worked as a doctor in palliative care since 1998, a medical specialty that inevitably exposes physicians to a lot of death and dying. In response to a mass shooting at a university in 2007, he wrote an article expressing his dismay at how grief was being discussed in the context of this event. Reflectively, he realizes this is where his passion for grief work began. Galanos lost his son in 2018; a lived experience with grief that further influenced his opinion on how poorly doctors are trained to handle grief.
Citation reference: Dr. Anthony Galanos, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, May 16, 2025.
Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Executive Core Faculty Member at Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Associate of the Duke Initiative for Science and Society, and Affiliate Faculty of the Duke Global Health Institute.
Donald Taylor, Ph.D., has shared how his lived experience with grief ultimately influenced his policy focus. Early in his marriage, his wife’s aunt passed away, and Don and his wife became the guardians of her two teenage children, in addition to having young children of their own at the time. Dr. Taylor has served as the executor for multiple estates; these experiences have furthered his awareness that there’s a lack of preparation for caregiving in the United States, and the transition between caregiving and bereavement, when that person eventually passes away. Taylor has a health policy background; his experience catalyzed his interest in how health decisions could be better communicated to next of kin and those with power of attorney.
Citation reference: Dr. Don Taylor, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, May 22, 2025.
Associate Professor at the UNC Department of Psychiatry and Director of Psycho-Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Support Program at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Justin Yopp, Ph.D, is a clinical psychologist at UNC Cancer Hospitals. Although bereavement isn’t a main function of his role, grief is; he works with cancer patients daily, so anticipatory grief, along with the grief of how their life is changing due to their cancer diagnosis, is ever-present. For more than 15 years, he has been a co-leader of the UNC Widowed Parent Program; this group supports parents with children at home who become widowed after the loss of their partner. The support groups have been operated continuously for widowed fathers since 2010, and for widowed mothers since 2018.
Citation reference: Dr. Justin Yopp, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, June 12, 2025.
Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Carolina Population Center.
While Dr. Petry was in her Ph.D program at the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, her grandmother, brother-in-law, and uncle died. She recognizes that she was in the fortunate position of having a Ph.D advisor who specialized in palliative and end-of-life care, so he understood the importance of Dr. Petry taking the bereavement leave she needed. During her Ph.D program at the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, she co-authored Grief: The Epidemic Within an Epidemic.
Citation reference: Dr. Sarah Petry, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, August 29, 2025.
Chief Clinical Officer at Help Texts.
Dr. Lunardini is a leading expert in grief and loss with over 20 years of experience across various mental health settings. She holds a Ph.D. in International Psychology with a Trauma focus, as well as an MBA and a Master's in Psychology with a Marriage and Family Therapy concentration. With a clinically trained background, Melissa specializes in grief-tech, grief AI, childhood bereavement, hospice and palliative care, theory, and trauma, and has developed innovative programs and evidence-based interventions across various industries, including healthcare, education, tech, and non-profit. A Fellow in Thanatology, Melissa is a sought-after presenter and researcher. Her work on text-based grief support has been published in preeminent journals and presented at national and international conferences. As Chief Clinical Officer at Help Texts, Melissa oversees the delivery of global mental health and grief support via text message. She ensures all content is rooted in evidence-based practices, leads subscriber support and research initiatives, and plays a key role in AI and product development. Help Texts provides grief support through grief education; these bi-weekly text messages are sent directly to grieving individuals. Help Texts has curated, through working directly with professionals in the psycho-ed field, messages specified to the type of loss the text recipient experienced. Some of their work is geared towards providing practical resources for recipients who are executors or trustees, which helps them break down what tasks should be prioritized.
Citation reference: Dr. Melissa Lunardini, Help Texts, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, August 29, 2025.
Founder of Executorium.com.
George Compton is the founder of Executorium.com, inspired by two defining experiences: leading an international construction association and later serving as an executor. As Executive Director of the Deep Foundations Institute, he worked at the center of a complex technical industry, aligning diverse stakeholders, communicating specialized information, and building practical resources for the industry. When he became an executor, he encountered a different kind of complexity—legal, administrative, and emotional—and saw how little support existed for people in that role. That gap led him to create Executorium.com, a platform designed to give executors the context, structure, and guidance they need. By combining his background in leadership, communications, and stakeholder support with practical estate experience, Compton is filling a long-overlooked void.
Citation reference: George R. Compton III, Executorium, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, October 21, 2025.
Curator and Founder of The Grief Gallery®.
Charlene is a certified grief coach, TEDx speaker, and the author of Curating Grief: A Creative Guide to Choosing What to Keep After a Loved One Dies. After her mother died suddenly in 2013, Charlene leaned into her creativity and instincts as a curator to guide herself through grief. Her grief work focuses on creating and making a beautiful space for grief, and using the lens of curating to help grieving people sort through the physical and emotional "stuff." With her creative platform, The Grief Gallery®, Charlene presents exhibitions internationally featuring the belongings of loved ones lost, including installations in Los Angeles, New York City, and London. She's shared her life-affirming Curating Grief® approach with thousands of grievers through her individual client work, group programs, events, and talks. Her TEDx talk, “What Grief and Soy Sauce Taught Me About Life After Loss,” has been viewed more than 20,000 times.
Citation reference: Charlene Lam, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, October 31, 2025.
Founder and CEO of EstateExec.
Dan Stickel is the Founder and CEO of EstateExec, the leading online software for estate executors and their lawyers. EstateExec provides step-by-step guidance to surviving families for handling the settlement of their loved one's estate, automatically customized for the details of the estate, plus easy-to-use estate accounting. EstateExec saves time, money, and perhaps most important of all, offers peace of mind to the surviving family. Dan is a former Google executive and a long-time tech entrepreneur who has had responsibility for billions of dollars in revenue, raised over $100M in funding, earned an undergraduate and a graduate degree from Harvard, and served as an executor for each of his parents in turn. It was the loss of his parents and the ensuing exposure to the surrounding financial and legal requirements that inspired the launch of EstateExec and this latest phase of his career. Dan is a speaker at the Practicing Law Institute, a contributing author at Kiplinger, has written for Thomson Reuters' prestigious Estate Planning journal, and is the recipient of numerous awards, including an Edison Award for Innovative Software Solutions.
Citation reference: Dan Stickel, EstateExec, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 3, 2025.
Estate Planning Attorney and Founder at Sapphire Law Group, Leader within the American Bar Association’s Real Property, Trust and Estate Section.
Heather Johnston is an estate planning attorney in California. A Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, Heather has been practicing law for 18 years and is a longtime leader within the American Bar Association's Real Property, Trust and Estate Section, including as Chair of the Emotional and Psychological Issues in Estate Planning Committee. Heather's path into estate planning was shaped by her upbringing as a first-generation college graduate from a small-town, blue-collar background, one where planning for the future wasn't always part of the conversation. That lived experience drives her deepest conviction: that estate planning isn't just for the wealthy or the complicated. It is for every family that wants to pass down not only what they have, but who they are. Her most meaningful work helps clients articulate their values, preserve their family stories, and create a legacy rooted in community and heritage. In doing so, she hopes to change the generational pattern of failing to plan and to give families the tools to care for one another in ways that endure.
Citation Reference: Heather Johnston, JD, Sapphire Law Group, American Bar Association, Real Property, Trust, and Estate Law Section, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 4, 2025.
Senior Producer/Director and Instructional Designer at WPSU.
Lindsey is an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker, international speaker, and grief educator. In her current role as a senior producer/director and instructional designer at PBS/NPR affiliate WPSU, she focuses on projects related to grief, trauma, and mental health. She is the creator of Speaking Grief and Learning Grief, the founder of Empathic Media, a member of the Board of Directors for the National Alliance for Children's Grief (NACG), and an instructional designer and content creator for the Yale Child Study Center’s Grief-Sensitive Healthcare Project. She specializes in multiplatform initiatives that make complex emotional topics more accessible, engaging, and actionable. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Cinema and Digital Arts from Point Park University and her master’s degree in Learning, Design, and Technology from Penn State. She is Certified in Thanatology through the Association for Death Education and Counseling (ADEC). Lindsey’s professional emphasis on grief began with a recognition that many well-intentioned supporters lack the literacy and tools needed to respond effectively to grieving individuals. Her work centers on promoting widespread grief literacy to strengthen the quality and efficacy of support. That work is informed both by early experiences of feeling ill-equipped to offer meaningful support and by personal losses, including the deaths of two grandmothers, a young cousin, a beloved dog, and, most recently, her mother.
Citation reference: Lindsey Whissel Fenton, Speaking Grief and Learning Grief, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 5, 2025.
Senior Director of Advocacy & Education at Dougy Center: The National Grief Center for Children & Families.
Dr. Schuurman has been with the Dougy Center in Portland, Oregon, where she has served in various roles since 1986, including 25 years as Executive Director. She writes and trains internationally on bereavement and has authored numerous articles, book chapters, and the book, Never the Same: Coming to Terms with the Death of a Parent. Dr. Schuurman served as President of the Board of Directors for the Association for Death Education & Counseling and received their Annual Service Award in 2003 and their Clinical Practice Award in 2013. She is a member of the International Work Group on Death, Dying, and Bereavement, and a founding board member of the National Alliance for Children’s Grief. She has been invited to assist communities following tragic school shootings and natural disasters; is regularly sought out by national media for interviews related to understanding and supporting children, teens, and adults when someone in their life dies; and provides expert witness testimony in wrongful death legal cases.
Citation reference: Dr. Donna Schuurman, Dougy Center, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 13, 2025.
Founder and Executive Director of Evermore.
Joyal Mulheron is a Washington, DC-based public policy expert with more than twenty-five years of experience advising the nation’s governors, the White House, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations. She is the Founder and Executive Director of Evermore, a national nonprofit dedicated to improving the lives of bereaved people through research, policy, and advocacy. She has worked across political parties and sectors to advance national attention to bereavement as a public health, economic, and social issue, and has contributed to multiple federal policy efforts, including bereavement provisions in the U.S. appropriations process and paid bereavement leave for U.S. Armed Forces. She has led major initiatives at institutions including the National Governors Association, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the American Cancer Society, and is responsible for producing the first Report to Congress on grief and bereavement and the federal government’s community bereavement response guidance. Mulheron’s work is informed by her lived experience with profound loss, including the death of her infant daughter in 2010 and her father during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evermore has played a significant role in advancing bereavement leave policy by raising national awareness, supporting legislative efforts, and advocating for more comprehensive and compassionate workplace standards for grieving employees.
Citation reference: Joyal Mulheron, Evermore, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 2, 2025.
Social Psychologist and Associate Professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.
Dr. Shen is a leading expert on coping with cancer, grief, and serious illness, a social psychologist, and Associate Professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. Dr. Shen has witnessed firsthand the grief that families experience when walking through the process of losing someone to a serious illness, which has motivated her to find ways to advocate and help support them in their grief journey - something we all will face. Her NIH-funded research focuses on resilience and well-being, and her work has been featured in major journals like JAMA Network Open and Cancer as well as in Science, Forbes, Entrepreneur, and USA Today. She has been a TEDx speaker on the topic of grief, and she writes a weekly Substack newsletter called Light in the Wound.
Citation reference: Dr. Megan Shen, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.
Legislative Assistant at the North Carolina General Assembly.
Laura Burns is a Legislative Assistant at the North Carolina General Assembly, where she supports policy development and brings a grief-informed lens to her legislative work. She previously served as Chief of Staff at Grieve Leave, helping lead initiatives to normalize grief and advance workplace bereavement policies, a focus shaped by her own experience navigating the sudden loss of her father to cancer in July 2025. Laura holds a Master of Public Affairs and a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Citation Reference: Laura Burns, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.
Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellow at Duke University.
Dr. Etter is a Hospice and Palliative Medicine fellow at Duke University. She completed a Family Medicine residency at The Ohio State University in 2025. Her interests include advocacy around grief and bereavement education and policy. She also serves as the Graduate Fellow for Grieve Leave, a grief awareness organization, where she plans community events for those who are grieving.
Citation Reference: Dr. Kate Etter, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.
Board-certified psychiatrist, ADHD clinical specialist, mental health media expert.
Dr. Sasha Hamdani is a board-certified psychiatrist and ADHD clinical expert. She is an author, entrepreneur, and mental health advocate. Dr. Hamdani has worked closely with the White House and the Surgeon General’s team to speak out about mental health awareness and was recognized by Harvard as a public health leader. She also has a robust social media following on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube (@thepsychdoctormd), where she provides evidence-backed information and dispels stigma around all facets of wellness. Her book Self-Care for People with ADHD was released through Simon and Schuster in 2023, and her comprehensive ADHD management app FocusGenie launched in the fall of 2023. Her latest book, Too Sensitive, will be released in August 2026. She has spoken openly about grief and presented a keynote talk at the Endwell conference detailing the effects of grief on a neurodivergent brain.
Citation reference: Dr. Sasha Hamdani, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, January 7, 2026.
Professor in the Arizona State University School of Social Work, founder of the MISS Foundation, and founder of Selah Carefarm.
Dr. Cacciatore is an internationally recognized expert in traumatic grief, bereavement, and caregiver support, with more than two decades of experience working with individuals and families who have experienced profound loss, particularly the death of a child. She’s the Founder of Selah Carefarm, a therapeutic sanctuary in Sedona, Arizona, that provides grief-informed, trauma-sensitive support through nature-based, community-centered healing for bereaved individuals and families. She has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications and books on grief and trauma, and her research has contributed significantly to the academic understanding of bereavement, attachment, and compassionate care practices. Her work bridges scholarship and practice, emphasizing the importance of validating grief as a natural human response rather than a condition to be treated or resolved. Dr. Cacciatore is also a frequent speaker and educator, providing training to clinicians, healthcare providers, and community organizations on grief-informed care. In addition to her professional expertise, Dr. Cacciatore brings lived experience as a bereaved mother, which has deeply shaped her career and her commitment to improving how individuals and institutions respond to loss.
Citation reference: Dr. Joanne Cacciatore, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, telephone interview, January 23, 2026.
- Kate Bowler, Ph.D. - Theologian, historian of Christianity, and professor at Duke Divinity School whose work examines illness, mortality, and the cultural narratives surrounding suffering and grief
- David Kessler, M.A. - Grief expert, author, and former healthcare executive who worked with Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and later developed widely used frameworks on grief and meaning-making after loss
- Megan Devine, L.P.C. - Licensed professional counselor, psychotherapist, and author whose work challenges conventional grief models and advocates for a more individualized, less pathologizing approach to grief support
- Brené Brown, Ph.D. - Research professor and social scientist at the University of Houston whose scholarship on vulnerability, shame, and emotional resilience informs broader understandings of grief and human connection
- Allison Gilbert - Journalist, author, and grief advocate whose work focuses on bereavement, resilience, and supporting individuals experiencing family and caregiving loss
- Mary-Frances O’Connor, Ph.D. - Professor of psychology and psychiatry and neuroscientist whose research investigates the neurobiological and psychological mechanisms of grief and prolonged grief disorder
- American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) - A professional organization of trust and estate law practitioners that provides expertise and guidance on legal issues related to death, inheritance, and estate administration
- Option B - An initiative founded by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant that provides resources and community support for individuals navigating adversity, trauma, and loss
- Katherine Shear, M.D. - A psychiatrist and professor at Columbia University, is known for pioneering research on prolonged grief disorder and for developing evidence-based clinical treatments for complicated grief
- Bereve - An organization focused on workplace bereavement policy reform and employer guidance to improve standards of paid leave and organizational support for grieving employees
- Empathy - A technology company that provides bereavement support services, including logistical assistance, care coordination, and employer-based grief support tools for families after a death

Footnotes

1 Cicero, Marcus T. 2022. How to Grieve: An Ancient Guide to the Lost Art of Consolation. Edited by Michael Fontaine. Translated by Michael Fontaine. N.p.: Princeton University Press.

2 Shen, Megan. 2022. “How the science of grief can inform better bereavement leave in the U.S.” Medium. https://medium.com/@meganjohnsonshen/how-the-science-of-grief-can-inform-better-bereavement-leave-in-the-u-s-3d7a1876ec83

3 “Is Bereavement Leave Required by Law?” 2025. Legal Clarity. https://legalclarity.org/is-bereavement-leave-required-by-law/.

4 Walker, Elizabeth. 2024. “Guide to bereavement leave.” PeopleKeep. https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/guide-to-bereavement-leave.

5 “Evermore State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.” 2023. Evermore.org. https://evermore.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Evbereavementpredictablyermore-State-Berearecommendationsvement-Leave-Policy-Brief.pdf.

6 Ibid

7 Ibid

8 “What Is an Executor of Estate? A Legal Guide.” 2025. LegalZoom. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-is-an-executor-of-estate.

9 Weeks, Tresi, and Rachel Dickison. n.d. “How Long Does an Executor's Job Typically Take?” The Weeks Law Firm. Accessed 2025. https://weekslawfirm.com/how-long-does-an-executors-job-take/.

10 “How Long Does It Take to Settle an Estate?” 2024. The Lexern Law Group, Ltd. https://www.lexern.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-settle-an-estate.

11 “By 2030, All Baby Boomers Will Be Age 65 or Older.” 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-baby-boomers-will-be-age-65-or-older.html.

12 Pollard, Kelvin, and Paola Scommegna. 2014. “Just How Many Baby Boomers Are There?” PRB.org. https://www.prb.org/news/just-how-many-baby-boomers-are-there/.

13 Rogers, Luke. 2017. “Different Measures of Demographic Change and the Stories They Tell.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/09/population-change.html.

14 Shah, Prerna. 2023. “Five Important Questions About FMLA and Bereavement Leave.” Evermore. https://evermore.org/five-important-questions-about-fmla-and-bereavement-leave-and-the-family-and-medical-leave/.

15 Empathy.com. 2025. “Grief at Work in 2025: 5 Stats Every Employer Needs to Know.” https://5-stats-for-employers-grief-tax.tiiny.site/?submissionGuid=707d1883-1e0d-42a4-88cf-b1e41688407a.

16 “Executrix: What it is, How it Works, Estate Planning.” 2021. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/executrix.asp.

17 Shen, “How the Science of Grief.”

18 “Dougy Center for Grieving Children & Families | Portland, OR.” 2021. Dougy Center for Grieving Children & Families | Portland, OR. https://www.dougy.org/get-involved/join-in/understandgrief/10-core-principles-of-being-grief-informed.

19 “Centering Lived Expertise: How to Meaningfully Elevate the Voices of People Directly Impacted by the Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health Systems.” 2024. CSG Justice Center: Home. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CSGJC-Stepping-Up-Centering-Lived-Expertise_V6_508.pdf.

20 Bates, Cassidie. 2024. Centering Lived Experience for Effective Advocacy. https://share.google/IUnPfP4tUJu1h2LZp.

21 Cacciatore, Joanne. 2017. Bearing the Unbearable: Love, Loss, and the Heartbreaking Path of Grief. N.p.: Wisdom Publications.

22 Bartram, Finn. 2025. “Bereavement Leave: Employer's Guide 2024.” People Managing People. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/workforce-management/bereavement-leave/.

23 “Understanding State Bereavement Leave Laws.” 2024. Poster Compliance Center. https://www.postercompliance.com/blog/understanding-state-bereavement-leave-laws/.

24 Ibid

25 A Guide to Public vs. Private Sector Employment.” 2025. Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/public-vs-private-sector.

26 Ibid

27 Bartram, “Bereavement Leave.”

28 “Who is Considered Immediate Family for Bereavement Leave?” 2025. TriNet. https://www.trinet.com/insights/who-is-considered-immediate-family-for-bereavement-leave.

29 Fermin, Mariel G. 2023. “Who is considered immediate family for bereavement leave?” HRD America. https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/who-is-considered-immediate-family-for-bereavement-leave/462384.

30 TriNet, “Who Is Considered Immediate Family.”

31 Birt, Jamie. 2025. “What Is Bereavement Leave and How Does It Work? (With FAQs).” Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/bereaved-leave.

32 “Fact Sheet #28I: Calculation of Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.” 2025. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28i-fmla-leave-calculation.

33 Coucke, Anna. 2025. “Bereavement Leave Policy Guide for Employers.” GoCo. https://www.goco.io/blog/the-hr-guide-to-bereavement-leave-trends.

34 Jewish Currents, “The Right to Grieve,” Jewish Currents, March 13, 2023, https://jewishcurrents.org/the-right-to-grieve.

35 Katherine S. Hanson, No Leave To Grieve: How Misfit Frameworks and America's "Grief Tsunami" Require Better Bereavement Policy, 24 Marq. Ben & Soc. Welfare L. Rev. 51 (2022). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/benefits/vol24/iss1/4/

36 Julianne Tveten, “When It Comes to Bereavement Leave, the U.S. Is Unspeakably Cruel,” Workplace Fairness, September 24, 2019, https://www.workplacefairness.org/when-it-comes-to-bereavement-leave-the-u-s-is-unspeakably-cruel.

37 Jewish Currents, “The Right to Grieve.”

38 American Psychiatric Association. n.d. “What Is Grief?” Center for Workplace Mental Health. https://www.workplacementalhealth.org/mental-health-topics/grief.

39 Ibid

40 Empathy.com, “Grief at Work in 2025: 5 Stats.”

41 Empathy.com, “Grief at Work in 2025: 5 Stats.”

42 Bereave. 2026. “51% Leave Within a Year: What Workplace Grief Is Costing Employers.” Bereave. https://www.bereave.io/post/51-leave-within-a-year-what-workplace-grief-is-costing-employers.

43 U.S. Census Bureau, “By 2030, All Baby Boomers Will Be Age 65 or Older.”

44 U.S. Census Bureau, “By 2030, All Baby Boomers Will Be Age 65 or Older.”

45 “Get the Facts on Older Americans.” 2024. National Council on Aging. https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-older-americans/.

46 Weeks and Dickison, “How Long Does an Executor’s Job Take?”

47 “Probate by the Numbers | Preventing Probate Estate Administration | Batavia, IL.” n.d. Drendel & Jansons Law Group. Accessed 2025. https://www.batavialaw.com/escreatetate-administration/probate-by-the-numbers/.

48 Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.

49 Kwong, Emily, host. “What Happens in the Brain When We Grieve with Mary Frances O’Connor.” Short Wave, November 8, 2021. Audio podcast, 15:10. Hosted by Emily Kwong. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1052498852.

50 “Fact Sheet: Sick Leave for Family Care or Bereavement Purposes.” n.d. OPM. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/sick-leave-for-family-care-or-bereavement-purposes/.

51 “Funeral Leave.” 2025. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/funeral-leave.

52 Shah, “Five Questions About FMLA and Bereavement Leave.”

53 Evermore, “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.”

54 “Fact Sheet #28: The Family and Medical Leave Act.” n.d. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28-fmla.

55 Policy Engage. n.d. “US Congress HR4954 Military Families Bereavement Leave Act.” https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-4954-military-families-bereavement-leave-act/314623/.

56 Congress.gov. n.d. “S.2935 - Sarah Grace-Farley-Kluger Act 117th Congress (2021-2022).” https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2935.

57 Congress.gov. n.d. “Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/856.

58 U.S. Department of War. 2023. “DOD Announced New Bereavement Leave Benefit for Members.” https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3345316/dod-announced-new-bereavement-leave-benefit-for-members/.

59 OPM, “Sick Leave for Family Care or Bereavement.”

60 “5 U.S. Code § 6307 - Sick leave; accrual and accumulation | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” n.d. Law.Cornell.Edu. Accessed 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/6307.

61 OPM, “Sick Leave for Family Care or Bereavement.”

62 Ibid

63 Ahuja, Kiran A. 2022. “Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).” https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2022/parental-bereavement-leave-04012022_508.pdf.

64 “Text - S.1605 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.” 2022. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1605/text.

65 Donna M. Wilson et al., “A Study to Understand the Impact of Bereavement Grief on the Workplace,” Omega: Journal of Death and Dying 83, no. 1, 187-88, 2019.

66 Hanson, “No Leave to Grieve.”

67 Evermore, “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.”

68 “New State Compliance Obligations for Family and Medical Leave.” 2025. The National Law Review. https://natlawreview.com/article/2026-family-and-medical-leave-law-updates-what-employers-seven-states-need-know

69 “Bereavement Leave FAQs | NC Office of Human Resources.” 2024. NC State Human Resources. https://oshr.nc.gov/bereavement-leave-faqs.

70 “House Bill 810.” n.d. North Carolina General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2025/H810.

71 Poster Compliance Center, “State Bereavement Leave Laws.”

72 LegiScan.com. n.d. “Bill Text: CA AB1949 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session | Chaptered.” Accessed 2025. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1949/id/2609137.

73 Evermore, “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.”

74 Ibid

75 MacDonagh, Heather N. 2025. “2025 Regular Session - Fiscal and Policy Note for House Bill 921.” Maryland. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/fnotes/bil_0001/hb0921.pdf.

76 Evermore, “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.”

77 Ibid

78 “Employers.” Evermore. n.d. Evermore.org. https://evermore.org/employers/.

79 “The Value of Bereavement Leave: Behind the Numbers.” n.d. LeanIn.org. https://leanin.org/bereavement-at-work.

80 “NFP US Leave Management and HR Trend Report.” n.d. NFP. https://www.nfp.com/benefits/human-capital-solutions/leave-management-report/.

81 Birt, Jamie. 2025. “What Is Bereavement Leave and How Does It Work? (With FAQs).” Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/bereaved-leave.

82 NFP, “Leave Management and HR Trend Report.”

83 Ibid

84 Hanson, “No Leave to Grieve.”

85 Bates, “Centering Lived Experience.”

86 Dr. Sasha Hamdani, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, January 7, 2026.

87 Joyal Mulheron, Evermore, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 2, 2025.

88 Lindsey Whissel Fenton, Speaking Grief and Learning Grief, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 5, 2025.

89 Shen, “How the Science of Grief.”

90 Dr. Megan Shen, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.

91 Dr. Joanne Cacciatore, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, telephone interview, January 23, 2026.

92 HRStacks, “2026 Average Onboarding Time Statistics: EORs VS Direct Hiring,” HRStacks, February 5, 2026, https://www.hrstacks.com/average-onboarding-time-statistics.

93 Ibid

94 WifiTalents, “Recruiting Statistics,” WifiTalents, February 12, 2026, https://wifitalents.com/recruiting-statistics.

95 Shen interview, Bates, Zoom.

96 Hamdani interview, Bates, Zoom.

97 Shen, “How the Science of Grief.”

98 Katherine A. Ornstein, Melissa M. Garrido, Albert L. Siu, Evan Bollens-Lund, Omari-Khalid Rahman, and Amy S. Kelley, “An Examination of Downstream Effects of Bereavement on Healthcare Utilization for Surviving Spouses in a National Sample of Older Adults,” PharmacoEconomics 37, no. 4 (2019): 585-596, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00787-4.

99 Majbritt B. Guldin, Anne B. Jensen, Rikke Zachariae, and Peter Vedsted, “Healthc bereavement implementation are Utilization of Bereaved Relatives of Patients Who Died from Cancer: A National Population-Based Study,” Psycho-Oncology 22, no. 5 (2013): 1152-1158, https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3120.

100 Heather Johnston, JD, Sapphire Law Group, American Bar Association, Real Property, Trust, and Estate Law Section, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 4, 2025.

101 Dr. Kate Etter, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.

102 Dr. Donna Schuurman, Dougy Center, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 13, 2025.

103 Dr. Anthony Galanos, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, May 16, 2025.

104 Laura Burns, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, December 16, 2025.

105 Empathy, “The Grief Tax,” Empathy, https://www.empathy.com/thegrieftax.

106 Charlene Lam, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, October 31, 2025.

107 Dan Stickel, EstateExec, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, November 3, 2025.

108 Burns interview, Bates, Zoom.

109 Ibid

110 Dr. Melissa Lunardini, Help Texts, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, August 29, 2025.

111 Ibid

112 Ibid

113 Lam interview, Bates, Zoom.

114 Whissel Fenton interview, Bates, Zoom.

115 Schuurman interview, Bates, Zoom.

116 Dougy Center, “Core Principles of Grief-Informed Care.”

117 Weeks and Dickison, “How Long Does an Executor’s Job Take?”

118 Lunardini interview, Bates, Zoom.

119 George R. Compton III, Executorium, interview by Cassidie Carmen Bates, Zoom interview, October 21, 2025.

120 Ibid

121 Ibid

122 Ibid

123 Lam interview, Bates, Zoom.

124 Stickel interview, Bates, Zoom.

125 S. E. Petry, D. Hughes, and A. Galanos, “Grief: The Epidemic Within an Epidemic.” The American journal of hospice & palliative care 38(4), no. Epub 2020 Dec 7 (April): 419-422. 10.1177/1049909120978796.

126 Burns interview, Bates, Zoom.

127 Stickel interview, Bates, Zoom.

128 Dougy Center, “Core Principles of Grief-Informed Care.”

129 Cicero, How to Grieve.

130 LegalZoom, “Executor of Estate Guide.”

131 Investopedia, “Executrix in Estate Planning.”

132 Kvilhaug, Suzanne. 2025. “What Is a Trustee? Definition, Role, and Duties.” Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trustee.asp.

133 Walker, “Guide to Bereavement Leave.”

134 Fermin, “Immediate Family for Bereavement Leave.”

135 TriNet, “Immediate Family for Bereavement Leave.”

136 Coucke, “Bereavement Leave Policy Guide.”

137 “Bereavement Pay Policy | A Skuad 2025 Guide.” 2025. Skuad. https://www.skuad.io/glossary/understanding-bereavement-pay-a-comprehensive-guide.

138 Soltero, Natalie. 2025. “Is My Company Required to Offer Bereavement Leave?” Stratus HR. https://stratus.hr/resources/is-my-company-required-to-offer-bereavement-leave.

139 U.S. Department of Labor, “FMLA Leave Calculation.”

140 Dougy Center, “Core Principles of Grief-Informed Care.”

141 CSG Justice Center, “Centering Lived Expertise.”

142 Bates, “Centering Lived Experience.”

143 Indeed, “Public vs. Private Sector Employment.”

144 Ibid

145 Pew Research Center, “The Baby Boom Generation: Past, Present and Future,” Pew Research Center.

146 U.S. Census Bureau, Projected Age Groups and Generations, Population Projections Program.

147 Pew Research Center, “The Oldest Baby Boomers Turn 80 in 2026,”.

148 U.S. Census Bureau, National Population Projections Tables, cohort survival and age distribution estimates.

149 CDC, “Life Expectancy in the United States.”

150 Poster Compliance Center, “State Bereavement Leave Laws.”

151 “Bereavement Leave | Civil Rights Department.” 2023. Civil Rights Department, State of California. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/04/Bereavement-Leave_AB-1949_FAQ_ENG.pdf.

152 “Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Bill Expanding Access to Bereavement Leave.” n.d. Californians for Safety and Justice. Accessed 2025. https://safeandjust.org/news/gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-expanding-access-to-bereavement-leave/.

153 “AB 1949 — Required Bereavement Leave.” 2023. Gomez Trial Attorneys. https://www.thegomezfirm.com/blog/ab-1949-required-bereavement-leave.

154 Ibid

155 Californians for Safety and Justice, “Newsom Expands Bereavement Leave.”

156 Evermore, “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.”

157 Californians for Safety and Justice, “Newsom Expands Bereavement Leave.”

Works cited

American Psychiatric Association. “What Is Grief?” Center for Workplace Mental Health. Accessed 2025. https://www.workplacementalhealth.org/mental-health-topics/grief.
Bartram, Finn. “Bereavement Leave: Employer's Guide 2024.” People Managing People, 2025. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/workforce-management/bereavement-leave/.
Bates, Cassidie. Centering Lived Experience for Effective Advocacy. 2024. https://share.google/IUnPfP4tUJu1h2LZp.
Bereave. “51% Leave Within a Year: What Workplace Grief Is Costing Employers.” 2026. https://www.bereave.io/post/51-leave-within-a-year-what-workplace-grief-is-costing-employers.
Birt, Jamie. “What Is Bereavement Leave and How Does It Work? (With FAQs).” Indeed, 2025. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/bereaved-leave.
Cacciatore, Joanne. Bearing the Unbearable: Love, Loss, and the Heartbreaking Path of Grief. Wisdom Publications, 2017.
Center for State Governments Justice Center. Centering Lived Expertise: How to Meaningfully Elevate the Voices of People Directly Impacted by the Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health Systems. 2024. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CSGJC-Stepping-Up-Centering-Lived-Expertise_V6_508.pdf.
Coucke, Anna. “Bereavement Leave Policy Guide for Employers.” GoCo, 2025. https://www.goco.io/blog/the-hr-guide-to-bereavement-leave-trends.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. How to Grieve: An Ancient Guide to the Lost Art of Consolation. Edited and translated by Michael Fontaine. Princeton University Press, 2022.
Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Dougy Center for Grieving Children & Families. “10 Core Principles of Being Grief-Informed.” 2021. https://www.dougy.org/get-involved/join-in/understandgrief/10-core-principles-of-being-grief-informed.
Empathy. “Grief at Work in 2025: 5 Stats Every Employer Needs to Know.” 2025. https://5-stats-for-employers-grief-tax.tiiny.site.
Evermore. “State Bereavement Leave Policy Brief.” 2023. https://evermore.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Evbereavementpredictablyermore-State-Berearecommendationsvement-Leave-Policy-Brief.pdf.
Fermin, Mariel G. “Who Is Considered Immediate Family for Bereavement Leave?” HRD America, 2023. https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/who-is-considered-immediate-family-for-bereavement-leave/462384.
Hanson, Katherine S. “No Leave to Grieve: How Misfit Frameworks and America’s ‘Grief Tsunami’ Require Better Bereavement Policy.” Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review 24 (2022). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/benefits/vol24/iss1/4.
Indeed. “A Guide to Public vs. Private Sector Employment.” 2025. https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/public-vs-private-sector.
Investopedia. “Executrix: What It Is, How It Works, Estate Planning.” 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/executrix.asp.
Jewish Currents. “The Right to Grieve.” March 13, 2023. https://jewishcurrents.org/the-right-to-grieve.
Kwong, Emily, host. “What Happens in the Brain When We Grieve with Mary-Frances O’Connor.” Short Wave. November 8, 2021. Podcast. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1052498852.
Legal Clarity. “Is Bereavement Leave Required by Law?” 2025. https://legalclarity.org/is-bereavement-leave-required-by-law/.
LegalZoom. “What Is an Executor of Estate? A Legal Guide.” 2025. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-is-an-executor-of-estate.
Lexern Law Group. “How Long Does It Take to Settle an Estate?” 2024. https://www.lexern.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-settle-an-estate.
National Council on Aging. “Get the Facts on Older Americans.” 2024. https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-older-america.
Office of Personnel Management. “Fact Sheet: Sick Leave for Family Care or Bereavement Purposes.” Accessed 2025. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/sick-leave-for-family-care-or-bereavement-purposes/.
PeopleKeep. Walker, Elizabeth. “Guide to Bereavement Leave.” 2024. https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/guide-to-bereavement-leave.
Pollard, Kelvin, and Paola Scommegna. “Just How Many Baby Boomers Are There?” Population Reference Bureau, 2014. https://www.prb.org/resources/just-how-many-baby-boomers-are-there.
Poster Compliance Center. “Understanding State Bereavement Leave Laws.” 2024. https://www.postercompliance.com/blog/understanding-state-bereavement-leave-laws.
Rogers, Luke. “Different Measures of Demographic Change and the Stories They Tell.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2017. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/09/population-change.html.
Shah, Prerna. “Five Important Questions About FMLA and Bereavement Leave.” Evermore, 2023. https://evermore.org/five-important-questions-about-fmla-and-bereavement-leave-and-the-family-and-medical-leave.
Shen, Megan. “How the Science of Grief Can Inform Better Bereavement Leave in the U.S.” Medium, 2022. https://medium.com/@meganjohnsonshen/how-the-science-of-grief-can-inform-better-bereavement-leave-in-the-u-s-3d7a1876ec83.
TriNet. “Who Is Considered Immediate Family for Bereavement Leave?” 2025. https://www.trinet.com/insights/who-is-considered-immediate-family-for-bereavement-leave.
Tveten, Julianne. “When It Comes to Bereavement Leave, the U.S. Is Unspeakably Cruel.” Workplace Fairness, September 24, 2019. https://www.workplacefairness.org/when-it-comes-to-bereavement-leave-the-u-s-is-unspeakably-cruel.
U.S. Census Bureau. “By 2030, All Baby Boomers Will Be Age 65 or Older.” 2019. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-baby-boomers-will-be-age-65-or-older.html.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Fact Sheet #28: The Family and Medical Leave Act.” Accessed 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28-fmla.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Fact Sheet #28I: Calculation of Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.” 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28i-fmla-leave-calculation.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Funeral Leave.” 2025. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/funeral-leave.
Weeks, Tresi, and Rachel Dickison. “How Long Does an Executor’s Job Typically Take?” Weeks Law Firm. Accessed 2025. https://weekslawfirm.com/how-long-does-an-executors-job-take.