A federal appeals court has revived a religious discrimination lawsuit against Alaska Airlines, allowing claims by two former flight attendants to move forward after a lower court dismissed the case.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide whether Lacey Smith and Marli Brown were terminated in retaliation for their religious beliefs. The decision marks a significant procedural victory for the employees and their legal team.
The case centers on events from early 2021, when Alaska Airlines announced its support for the proposed Equality Act through an internal employee forum. The Equality Act, introduced in Congress that year, sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under federal civil rights law. The airline invited employee commentary on its position.
Smith and Brown both posted comments in the forum expressing religious concerns about the legislation. Smith asked whether the company believed it could "regulate morality," framing her question around her stated Christian beliefs. Brown posted a separate comment articulating her religious conviction that the Equality Act would negatively impact women, girls and people of faith. Neither employee's posts appear to have contained slurs or incitement, according to court documents and public statements.
Within weeks of their forum posts, both employees were investigated by Alaska Airlines management. The investigation concluded that their comments were "discriminatory," "hateful" and "offensive." Both Smith and Brown were subsequently terminated from their positions as flight attendants.
The employees filed suit, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. A federal district court initially dismissed the case, ruling that the airline had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations.
The appellate panel found that the lower court had applied too high a standard in evaluating the discrimination claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage. According to the ruling, sufficient circumstantial evidence exists—the timing of the terminations relative to the forum posts, the characterization of routine religious commentary as "hateful," and the documented investigation that followed—to permit a jury to infer discriminatory intent. The court did not rule on the merits of the case itself, only that it should proceed to trial.
First Liberty Institute, the religious liberty law firm representing Smith and Brown, characterized the decision as a vindication of workplace protections for faith-based expression. "Federal civil rights laws protect people of faith from discrimination by their employer," a spokesperson said in a statement following the ruling.
The case raises important questions about the boundaries of corporate workplace policies and employee speech protections. Alaska Airlines framed its support for the Equality Act as part of its diversity and inclusion commitments. When employees posted dissenting religious views in a company forum, the airline treated those posts as violations of its workplace conduct standards.
The central legal question now becomes whether an employer can terminate workers for expressing religious disagreement with corporate political positions, or whether such terminations constitute unlawful retaliation based on religion.
Title VII's protections extend not only to obvious religious practices like prayer or Sabbath observance, but also to sincere religious beliefs that inform an employee's perspective on policy questions. Whether an employer must accommodate employee religious expression—or at minimum, refrain from retaliating against it—depends on whether that expression creates genuine workplace disruption or safety concerns.
According to the lawsuit, both Smith and Brown were members of the Transport Workers Union, which represents Alaska Airlines flight attendants. The employees named the union as a co-defendant, arguing that union representatives failed to adequately represent their interests during the investigation and termination process.
Alaska Airlines did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the appellate decision. The case will now proceed through discovery, where both sides will exchange documents and take depositions.
