Court Rules On Equality Act Firing
A federal appeals court has revived a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by two former Alaska Airlines flight attendants who say they were fired after questioning the company's support for the Equality Act in an internal employee forum. The ruling does not determine who ultimately wins the case, but it does conclude that enough factual disputes exist for a jury to hear the claims.
In a unanimous decision on the central issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday that former flight attendants Lacey Smith and Marli Brown may proceed with their lawsuit against both Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA. The panel concluded that a reasonable jury could find the airline's stated reasons for terminating the women were a pretext for religious discrimination.
"The Ninth Circuit's decision today reinforces that federal civil rights laws protect people of faith from discrimination by their employer or their union," First Liberty Institute senior counsel Stephanie Taub, who represents the women, said following the ruling. "You cannot be fired because your employer does not like your religious beliefs."
The decision overturns a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein, who had granted summary judgment in favor of Alaska Airlines and the union. Rather than ending the case, the lawsuit will now move toward trial.
The appeals court emphasized that the central issue is not whether an employer may discipline employees for discrimination or harassment. Instead, the question is whether that was actually the reason Brown and Smith lost their jobs.
"In sum, the issue is not whether Alaska can punish employees who engage in discrimination and harassment (it can)," the court wrote. "The issue here is instead a factual one of whether Brown was in fact fired for engaging in discrimination or harassment, or whether Alaska instead used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs."
Judge Daniel Bress authored the opinion, joined by Judge Kenneth Lee. Both were appointed by President Donald Trump. Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, agreed with nearly all of the ruling but would not have allowed one of Smith's claims against the airline to proceed.
The dispute dates back to February 2021, when Alaska Airlines announced on its internal employee network that it supported the federal Equality Act, legislation that would have expanded federal civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Employees had previously been encouraged to use the company's internal platform to discuss company announcements and respectfully exchange ideas.
After the announcement, Smith posted a brief question asking, "As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?"
Brown later published a much longer comment expressing religious objections to the Equality Act. She argued the legislation would threaten religious liberty, affect sex-segregated spaces such as shelters and prisons, and eliminate conscience protections. Her post reflected concerns commonly raised by opponents of the legislation at the time.
Internal company communications reviewed by the court showed Alaska initially considered responding publicly to the posts before eventually deleting both comments and shutting down further discussion. The airline later revised its internal comment policy to prohibit "partisan or personal (such as religious or political) opinions."
The appeals court also pointed to internal emails from company officials discussing the controversy. According to the opinion, an attorney in Alaska Airlines' legal department wrote that employees "actually do not have the right to believe that LGBTQ rights are 'immoral,'" a statement another executive reportedly endorsed.
The court found those communications could be relevant evidence for a jury evaluating whether the airline's explanation for the terminations was genuine.
The union's handling of the controversy also received close scrutiny. According to the opinion, Association of Flight Attendants officials privately described Smith's comments as "reprehensible," with one union leader writing that management needed to send her "packing." Another union representative reportedly joked about putting Smith and Brown "in a burlap bag and drop them in a well" before editing the message.
During Brown's grievance proceedings, the court noted that the union representative assigned to assist her privately texted another official, "Apparently [Brown] can't stop herself ... I may hurl," prompting the response, "Nice poker face ... NOT."
The appeals court concluded that those communications could support Brown's claim that the union failed to fairly represent her because of hostility toward her religious beliefs.
The opinion also highlighted that Brown's direct supervisor had recommended no formal discipline beyond a discussion and viewed her concerns as sincere. Nevertheless, Alaska terminated both women on March 19, 2021.
Smith had worked for Alaska Airlines for six years, while Brown had served for eight. Brown had no prior disciplinary record, and Smith's only previous discipline stemmed from a separate dispute involving an employee petition concerning the airline's public support for Black Lives Matter.
The court further observed that neither woman had any documented history of mistreating LGBTQ coworkers. Instead, the airline concluded their internal comments violated company anti-discrimination policies.
The judges found that sequence significant. Alaska initially treated Smith's question as one warranting a company response, but later characterized the same comment as discriminatory when terminating her employment.
"Indeed, Alaska was fully aware that some would object to the Equality Act for religious reasons," the court wrote. "That Alaska created a forum for employee discussion on controversial issues, then fired Brown after she made religious objections of the kind Alaska anticipated, provides a further reason for regarding this case as presenting a genuine dispute of fact on the reason for Brown's termination."
The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether Alaska Airlines or the union unlawfully discriminated against the two women.