In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed a discrimination lawsuit filed by two former Alaska Airlines flight attendants to proceed to trial against both the airline and their own union, the Association of Flight Attendants. The court found sufficient evidence that the union failed to adequately represent the women after they were terminated in 2021 for expressing religious objections to the Equality Act on an internal employee forum.
Lacey Smith and Marli Brown were fired by Alaska Airlines after responding to a company announcement supporting the Equality Act, a proposed federal bill that would amend civil rights law regarding gender identity. Both women posted comments expressing faith-based concerns about the legislation. According to court documents, union leadership then reported the flight attendants' comments directly to airline management and participated in discussions about how to respond.
What the Left Is Saying
LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and progressive labor organizations have long argued that religious freedom protections can be weaponized to undermine civil rights advances for transgender and queer individuals. The Equality Act has been framed by supporters as essential legislation to codify anti-discrimination protections that they say are currently full of loopholes. From this perspective, workplace policies supporting LGBTQ+ inclusion reflect legal obligations under existing civil rights law.
Civil liberties organizations aligned with progressive causes note that unions represent diverse membership and sometimes face difficult situations when members' expressed views conflict with the union's broader advocacy positions. Some labor advocates have suggested the case involves a complex intersection of competing rights rather than simple employer or union malfeasance.
What the Right Is Saying
Religious liberty advocates argue the ruling represents an important vindication of Title VII protections for employees of faith. They say the case demonstrates that unions cannot abandon their legal obligation to represent all dues-paying members simply because leadership disagrees with those members' religious beliefs.
First Liberty Institute, which represented Brown and Smith, has stated that the decision sends a clear message that labor organizations cannot use progressive corporate initiatives as justification to target workers whose religious views are unpopular with union officials. The organization argues that employees do not forfeit Title VII protections by paying union dues and expecting fair representation.
What the Numbers Show
The Ninth Circuit ruling is notable for being unanimous, with all three judges agreeing there was enough evidence to send the case to a jury trial rather than dismissing it. Court documents detail internal union communications in which representatives allegedly referred to Brown and Smith using derogatory language and discussed wanting "repercussions" against them.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against members based on religion or knowingly acquiescing in employer discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidance stating that unions must represent employees' interests regardless of the union's agreement or disagreement with those employees' beliefs.
The Equality Act passed the House in 2021 and 2023 but has not received a Senate vote during either session. It would amend federal civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories and would limit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from being used as a defense in certain discrimination cases.
The Bottom Line
The case will now proceed to trial, where a jury will determine whether Alaska Airlines violated Title VII by terminating employees for their religious expression and whether the Association of Flight Attendants failed its legal duty to represent those members. This marks a rare instance of a court allowing claims against a union to move forward alongside claims against an employer.
The ruling could have implications for labor organizations navigating politically charged workplace environments, particularly as debates over LGBTQ+ rights and religious liberty increasingly intersect in employment settings. Unions representing workers across diverse belief systems may face heightened scrutiny over how they handle disciplinary matters involving members whose views conflict with the organization's public positions.
What to watch: Whether the case settles before trial or proceeds to a full jury proceeding will shape how courts balance union representation obligations against progressive workplace policies and religious freedom claims.