The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a jury should decide whether an airline’s firing of two Christian flight attendants for objecting to the company’s support of proposed federal legislation, the Equality Act, was truly for violating its policy against harassment and discrimination or whether the real reason was religious discrimination. The airline hosted an internal communication platform in which employees were encouraged to participate, as long as the posts were respectful and didn’t violate company policy. The airline posted an announcement that it was proud to support the Equality Act, which according to the court “would extend certain federal nondiscrimination requirements to cover discrimination involving sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in various contexts.”
Airline confronts internal backlash over executive stance on civil rights legislation.
One of the flight attendants responded, “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?” The airline posted a reply explaining its reasons for supporting the legislation, and ending with the statement, “Our differences are to be respected. As stated in our People Policies, harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated.” The second flight attendant then read up on the proposal and posted a longer response, which began by asking if the company supported “endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women rights and parental rights?”
Ninth circuit revives discrimination suit over fired flight attendants’ intranet comments.
The airline launched an investigation into both employees and terminated their employment. The employees sued, claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as Oregon and Washington state laws. The Ninth Circuit was troubled by the “overwrought” termination notices, which indicated that the employees had violated company policies against harassment and discrimination by making comments that demeaned and degraded other employees. However, neither flight attendant had mentioned other employees in their posts nor did they have any history of conflict with LGBTQ coworkers. Also, the first employee’s post only mentioned morality, not religion, but the company didn’t start the disciplinary process until the second employee made explicitly religious statements. The court said that the company’s approach of bundling the two investigations and terminations together could indicate that it intended to discriminate against both employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs, so it sent the case on for a jury to decide (Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 9th Cir, June 2026).
Tips: As an employer, you will sometimes face situations where protecting one employee’s rights at work may seem to conflict with your duty to protect other employees’ rights. It’s not unusual for emotions to run high when this occurs. But that’s probably a good clue that you should step back and seek an unbiased assessment before you take action on behalf of one “side” or the other. If you’re a Vigilant member, your Vigilant Law Group employment attorney can provide that objective perspective. By looking carefully at the facts together, you may even discover that there isn’t actually a conflict (which seems likely to have been the case for the terminated flight attendants). Part of the investigation should include finding out how the employee intends to interact with coworkers. If an individual is committed to treating coworkers with respect despite differing views, there is generally a way forward that ensures policy compliance and safety for all involved. If an employee requests an exception to your normal procedures for their religious practices (such as a different work schedule), you also have a duty to consider reasonable accommodations. See our Legal Guide, Religious Accommodation in the Workplace, and Model Form, Religious Accommodation Request).
As the Brown v. Alaska Airlines decision proves, emotional workplace disputes can easily turn into costly lawsuits if handled incorrectly. Discover how Vigilant membership provides your team with ongoing proactive guidance needed to assess situations early and objectively before disciplinary actions are taken.
