close
close

Two women fired by Alaska Airlines over convictions continue legal battle

Two women fired by Alaska Airlines over convictions continue legal battle

Alaska Airlines recently announced its decision to stop distributing prayer cards with its in-flight meals. This photo shows the tail of one of the company's jets showing a smiling Eskimo man.
Alaska Airlines recently announced its decision to stop distributing prayer cards with its in-flight meals. This photo shows the tail of one of the company’s jets showing a smiling Eskimo man. | Courtesy of Alaska Airlines

Two former Alaska Airlines employees who were fired for questioning the company’s support of the Equality Act are appealing a decision that rejected their claims of religious discrimination.

The First Liberty Institute filed an appeal Wednesday on behalf of Marli Brown and Lacey Smith in their lawsuit against Alaska Airlines, which it alleges wrongfully terminated them in early 2021 because they were critical of the airline’s support of the Equality Act.

The Equality Act is a proposed law regularly reviewed by Congress that, if passed, would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination protections.

Get our latest news for FREE

Subscribe to receive daily/weekly emails with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

The appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs argued that the two plaintiffs were merely expressing their opinions in a forum where employees permitted it and were punished as a result.

“The airline encouraged its employees to engage in open dialogue by asking questions and sharing their diverse perspectives on Alaska’s World, a private network for employees only. When the airline expressed support for the proposed Equality Act, the plaintiffs each made a comment based on their religious beliefs,” the appeal states.

“Brown’s comments expressed her sincere religious belief that the Equality Act will negatively impact women, girls and people of faith. Smith simply asked, ‘As a company, do you believe it’s possible to regulate morality?'”

According to the complaint, their union representative reported their comments to the company, in which the airline’s leadership disparaged their Christian faith, and then fired the two women.

“Americans are being fired because of their religious beliefs, and it is appalling that a court would tolerate this. We urge the Ninth Circuit to reverse the lower court’s decision,” FLI Senior Counsel Stephanie Taub said in a statement.

“Alaska Airlines canceled our customers’ flights and the flight attendant union betrayed their trust. We will continue to fight for our customers until Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants are held accountable and American employees are protected from discrimination.”

Alaska Airlines is one of approximately 400 companies that have expressed support for passage of the Equality Act and is part of the Business Coalition for the Equality Act.

Proponents of the Equality Act have argued that it is necessary to protect LGBT people in the workplace, particularly because several states do not explicitly offer such protections.

Critics of the measure argued that the law would, among other things, create a hostile environment for business owners who hold traditional views on marriage and gender roles.

In August 2021, FLI filed two discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Smith and Brown.

The EEOC granted the two former employees Notices of Right to Sue in March 2022, and they filed a complaint against Alaska Airlines in May 2022.

In May, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the Western District of Washington ruled against Brown and Smith, writing, “Alaska’s decision to fire Brown and Smith based on their comments is not direct evidence of religious discrimination.”

“The seriousness with which Alaska treated plaintiffs’ violations is appropriate (and does not indicate discriminatory hostility), particularly given the unique nature of business in Alaska, which requires employees to work in close quarters and under stressful circumstances “work that can endanger the lives and safety of employees and customers,” Rothstein wrote.

“Alaska’s discipline against the plaintiffs, whose statements were reasonably viewed as at least contradictory to the company’s support of LBGTQ rights, can be explained as a rational business decision without any anti-religious bias.”

Keep following Michael Gryboski Twitter or Facebook

Related Post