Two Alaska Airlines flight attendants who were terminated after posting comments about the Equality Act on an internal employee message board will get their day in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that Lacey Smith and Marli Brown have sufficient grounds to proceed with their case alleging religious discrimination, reversing a lower court's dismissal of their claims.
Smith and Brown were fired in 2023 after Brown posted a comment saying the Equality Act would 'endanger the Christian church' and threaten religious freedom. Smith asked whether a company could 'regulate morality.' Alaska Airlines characterized both posts as discriminatory, citing its anti-harassment policies. Both women had clean disciplinary records; Brown had worked for the airline eight years without any prior incidents.
The appellate court found that a reasonable jury could conclude Alaska Airlines used its workplace conduct policies as cover to punish employees for their religious views. The ruling noted the airline had explicitly invited workers to 'openly share ideas' and 'understand one another' on the same forum where Smith and Brown posted their remarks, then terminated them after Brown's religious objections.
What the Right Is Saying
Religious liberty advocates say the ruling represents a significant win for employees who hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality. First Liberty Institute, which represented Smith and Brown, called it 'an incredible step towards a final victory that will restore Lacey and Marli's religious freedom.' They argue employers cannot invite discussion on contested social issues then punish workers whose responses reflect mainstream religious teachings.
Conservative legal commentators say the Ninth Circuit correctly applied the Supreme Court's framework for evaluating when neutral workplace policies become unlawful discrimination. They note the airline created a forum specifically designed for employee dialogue on controversial topics, making termination for viewpoint expression particularly problematic under First Amendment precedents applicable to private employers in that circuit.
What the Left Is Saying
Advocacy groups supporting LGBTQ+ workplace protections argue that comments questioning civil rights legislation can constitute workplace harassment when directed at protected classes. They note that Alaska Airlines' own policies prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, which the Equality Act would have strengthened.
Civil liberties organizations aligned with progressive causes say companies have legitimate interests in maintaining workplaces free from speech that questions the legal rights of specific groups. They argue religious freedom exemptions must be balanced against anti-discrimination protections, and that employers can enforce consistent standards without infringing on personal beliefs about theology or morality.
What the Numbers Show
The Equality Act was introduced in Congress in 2019 and has passed the House twice but has not received a Senate floor vote. The bill would amend federal civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics, with limited religious exemptions for certain faith-based organizations.
Alaska Airlines employs approximately 7,000 flight attendants across its network. The airline's internal communications policy states employees should 'openly share ideas' in designated forums while maintaining respectful discourse, according to court filings cited in the ruling.
The Ninth Circuit covers federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii — home to several major technology companies with contested workplace speech policies. Religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allow for back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages.
The Bottom Line
The case now returns to federal district court in Seattle for further proceedings. A trial date has not been set. Alaska Airlines could settle before reaching a jury, or pursue further appeals on specific procedural issues.
The ruling does not decide whether Alaska Airlines actually violated the law — only that Smith and Brown have enough evidence to present their claims to a jury. Employment law experts say cases involving competing civil rights protections often turn on specific workplace context, making jury trials particularly consequential for determining outcomes.
Both sides are watching closely as similar disputes work through federal courts. The outcome could influence how companies draft internal communications policies and how aggressively they enforce anti-harassment rules against employees who express religious objections to civil rights legislation.