5th Circuit: Religious Liberty Training Order Against Attorneys in Title VII Case Was Improperly Punitive

In Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, (5th Cir., May 8, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed portions of a Texas federal district court's judgment against Southwest Airlines and its employee union that found violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At issue was the airline's firing of a flight attendant for posting on Facebook and privately sending to the president of the flight attendants’ union images and videos of aborted fetuses. The flight attendant opposed the union's support for abortion rights. The appellate court held that a judgement in favor of Southwest should have been entered on the flight attendant's claim that she was fired because of her religious beliefs. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment against Southwest on belief-based intentional discrimination. The court however affirmed the jury's verdict that found Southwest had violated Title VII by firing the employee for her religious practices. Southwest failed to convince the jury that accommodating the flight attendant by granting an exception to its social media, bullying and harassment policies would create an undue hardship for Southwest.

The 5th Circuit held that the district court's injunction entered in the case was overbroad and vague. The court also vacated a contempt order that had been issued against Southwest, and which subsequently became the center of much press attention. (See prior posting.) As explained in part by the 5th Circuit:

... [A]s part of its judgment, the district court ordered Southwest to “inform Southwest flight attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including—but not limited to—those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion.” The notice that Southwest distributed to its flight attendants, however, stated a court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.”...

Carter moved the district court to hold Southwest in contempt, arguing the email merely stated that Southwest “does not discriminate,” rather than “may not discriminate,” a material deviation from the court’s language... The district court agreed with Carter and held Southwest in contempt. As a sanction, the district court ordered Southwest to circulate a statement—verbatim—to its flight attendants “to set the record straight,” and ordered three of Southwest’s in-house attorneys to attend religious-liberty training with the Alliance Defending Freedom....

... We ... cannot say the district court abused its discretion in holding the airline in contempt....

... [B]ut religious-liberty training would do little to compel compliance with the order or to compensate Carter. The attorneys ordered to attend training were not involved in the decision to terminate Carter, and no evidence offered at trial suggests they demonstrated animus against Carter or her religious beliefs.... Additionally, the training would not be limited to Title VII training but instead was to encompass topics irrelevant to securing compliance with a Title VII judgment. It was plainly not the least-restrictive means of remedying Southwest’s non-compliance....

Punitive sanctions exceed the scope of a federal court’s civil contempt authority.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Prof's Suit Over Display of Prophet Muhammad Paintings Will Move Ahead In Federal Court On Religious Discrimination Claim

In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."

The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:

Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....

Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....

... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients....  Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.

State Religious Discrimination Claims Against Airline Union Are Pre-empted By Federal Law

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 23, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed state-law religious discrimination claims brought against the flight attendants' union by two of its members.  Alaska Airlines fired plaintiffs because they posted comments on the company's internal intranet opposing the Airline's support for a federal statute that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs claimed their comments were grounded in their religious beliefs. The Union unsuccessfully represented the flight attendants at a hearing appealing their termination.  Plaintiffs then sued claiming not only that Alaska Airlines discriminated against them because of their Christian faith, but that the Union did not defend them as vigorously as it defends other flight attendants because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs. The court dismissed the flight attendants' claims against the Union that were brought under Washington and Oregon anti-discrimination laws.  It concluded that that the "duty of fair representation" stemming from provisions of the federal Railway Labor Act pre-empts claims brought under state anti-discrimination laws where the charge is that a union did not adequately represent an employee in the grievance process.