Appeals Court Overrules Religious Liberty Training for Southwest Airlines Lawyers

In a recent ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals spared Southwest Airlines' lawyers from attending religious liberty training. This decision follows a controversy stemming from the 2017 firing of a flight attendant, Charlene Carter, who sent graphic anti-abortion messages to her union president. The incident occurred after the union utilized employee funds to attend the pro-choice Women’s March.

Initially, a jury found that both Southwest Airlines and the union violated Carter's rights, reducing her compensation from $5.1 million to $910,000. The court mandated Southwest to inform its flight attendants that federal law prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs.

However, instead of following the exact wording of the judge's order, Southwest asserted that it "does not discriminate." This deviation led to the airline being held in contempt, resulting in a judge ordering three of the company's lawyers to complete eight hours of religious liberty training provided by the conservative group, Alliance Defending Freedom.

To comply with the judgment, Southwest reinstated Carter, posted the verdict in break rooms, and emailed all flight attendants about the court's decision. The communication stated that a federal court had ruled against Southwest and required them to affirm that they do not discriminate based on religious practices. An internal memo was also issued, expressing the company's disappointment with the ruling and intention to appeal.

Carter argued that Southwest's communications violated the judgment by not adhering strictly to the court's language, which led to the contempt ruling. The district court agreed and directed the airline to issue a precise statement to its flight attendants and ordered religious-liberty training for its lawyers.

However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the training exceeded the lower court's civil contempt authority. The appellate court noted that the mandated training covered topics beyond the Title VII issues pertinent to the case, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, which were unrelated to ensuring compliance with the judgment.

This ruling highlights the ongoing legal battles and complexities surrounding workplace discrimination and religious liberties, with significant implications for corporate policies and employee rights.