A lawsuit seeks damages against Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) after two flight attendants were fired for what they claim was the expression of their Christian faith in “Alaska’s World,” an internal employee-only communication network.
Claim: Christian Flight Attendants Fired At Alaska Airlines For Opposition To Equality Act
This case involves two (former) Alaska Airlines flight attendants, Lacey Smith and Marli Brown.
In 2020, Lacey created a petition entitled “Depoliticizing Alaska Airlines” which raised concerns over Alaska’s public support for the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically questioning calls to defund the police. Although the petition expressed support for racial equality, Lacey claims she was suspended for 30 days due to the petition.
In 2021, Alaska posted its support of the Equality Act (expands the definition of unlawful discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity) in Alaska’s World and invited discussion. Lacey posted:
“As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”
The union president, Jeff Peterson, purportedly reached out to Alaska to complain about how he found the comment offensive. Rather than delete the comment, Andy Schneider, Alaska’s Senior Vice President of People, responded:
“Supporting the Equality Act is not about regulating morality. It’s about supporting laws that allow our LGBTQ+ employees and guests, no matter what state they live in or fly to, to be protected against discrimination.”
Then Brown responded:
“Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women rights and parental rights? This act will force every American to agree with controversial government-imposed ideology on or be treated as an outlaw. The Equality Act demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms which threatens constitutional freedoms by eliminating conscience protections from the Civil Rights Act. The Equality Act would affect everything from girls’ and women’s showers and locker rooms to women’s shelters and women’s prisons, endangering safety and diminishing privacy. Giving people blanket permission to enter private spaces for the opposite sex enables sexual predators to exploit the rules and gain easy access to victims.”
In a private chat, union representatives mocked Brown and Lacey:
“Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well…”
The flight attendant comments were flagged and removed. Alaska then launched an investigation and purportedly fired the two flight attendants based on their comments above.
The two are now suing both Alaska and the AFA (and the docket is complicated and reaches back to 2022….the delay in launching this lawsuit has meant that certain statutes of limitation have passed).
At this stage, the plaintiffs are asking for summary judgment, arguing the evidence is so clear-cut that a trial is not even necessary.
A key allegation in the lawsuit: other employee were allowed to post “offensive, racist, or hurtful” items without discipline.
They point to another Alaska employee who posted, “Any Christian that thinks like this should have their teeth kicked in!” and received no discipline beyond an oral warning. Another Alaska employee purportedly received no discipline for taunting a co-worker about praying.
The issue here is not free speech: rather, it is whether employees of faith who did not toe the company line were treated in an unlawfully discriminatory manner.
We will be following this case closely. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for February 23, 2024.
image: Alaska Airlines
How did the person who posted this not get fired?
“ Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well…”
Without getting into the politics of it, this has large financial settlement written all over it.
I tend to agree and there are many more similar comments that I did not include. But I’m trying to get Alaska’s side of the story…it seems far too egregious, particularly concerning company policy RE: tolerance, which actually does not require everyone to parrot the same position.
The Supreme Court – regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the underlying morality – affirmed gay rights and marriage. Someone who disagrees with any law, particularly one affirmed by SCOTUS, on religious or other grounds, can believe whatever they want but if they do anything that violates the law they are subject to punishment.
That’s quite correct and these flight attendants claimed they would not treat any colleague or customer who was LGBTQ+ any different: that all were treated with love and respect. If that was the case, I see no ground to punish them for holding a different religious belief or conviction than management or union.
Well, if they are arguing that their religion enables them to deny the rights, liberties or respect of their colleagues and guests, then it makes perfect sense. Someone who says that they disagree with legal protections for Blacks, Jews or women may also say that they will not personally do anything to infringe on the aforementioned groups, but it is still a hostile employee that I wouldn’t want on my payroll.
Laws sometime conflicts with religion – particularly when tenants of religion are founded on hate, exclusion or lack of compassion.
A business not wanting an employee to overtly challenge their support of a law that increases the protections for their colleagues and customers is not anti-Christian, even if it gets clicks. It’s just good business and right.
Yes to the first part of your comment, but no to the second. If there was any sign they treated passengers or colleagues who were LGBTQ differently than other customers, then there were ripe grounds for termination. But if they simply held a conviction that the Equality Act was wrong (based upon traditional notions of sexuality), that is not grounds for termination. Frankly, your grounds for termination are absurd. Do we want Chick-fil-A to start firing workers who support marriage equality? Or Hobby Lobby to require employees to support bans on so-called gender-affirming care or else face termination? No. Religious convictions are protected. Employees cannot be discriminated against based on such views. Only when those convictions are manifested in action can punishment result.
You say a business is valid in not wanting employees to overtly challenge its support of a law “that increases the protections for their colleagues and customers,” but this was in an internal forum in which discussion was INVITED and in which the ladies were engaged by Alaska management before their posts were later deleted. Indeed, discovery in the case has already shown that even ex-CEO Tilden thought their questions were reasonable.
The ex-FAs are claiming that Alaska is anti-Christian. I am not making that charge: I am simply arguing that prima facie evidence suggests employees were held to different standards on the basis of their viewpoints. That’s not okay when discrimination adversely targets a protected group or class.
I’m not sure you’re right here. In most cases can’t employees be dismissed for any reason that isn’t a protected class? If I declared my support of gender affirming care at Hobby Lobby, could they not choose to fire me? I think they could. It’s a bit of a stretch to say it’s religious discrimination because any action could be support by personally held religious beliefs.
Maybe you see love and respect from them. I see intolerance and bigotry. Theirs is a dog whistle to every group that wants to espouse hatred and discrimination yet pretend that they’re just standing up for freedom.
Many good points in the comments. But one thing caught my eye: Alaska Airlines’ publicly endorsing the radical organization Black Lives Matter (BLM). BLM has not only been behind rioting and violence, but their internal financials have shown them to be a scam of an operation, enriching certain top officers with funds that were not intended for that. If Alaska Airlines touts their support for such an organization, I have no doubt that it’s a toxic place to work if you value free speech.
This doesn’t necessarily endorse any of the statements made by the fired FAs, but it does lend some credence to their complaint.
I think many would agree that the evolution of the BLM movement has been different than it’s position in the mainstream post-George Floyd. With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been correct to better scrutinize the organization. At the time, it was as shortcut for people and business to express empathy during a time of major racial animus. I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a Fortune 500 today putting out a new press release in support of BLM specifically, even if they are supportive of the principals that they thought BLM represented in 2021.
“At the time, it was as shortcut for people and business to express empathy during a time of major racial animus”
It still can be.
The entire movement behind blm was based on a lie. There is no systemic racism.
Flyertalk OMNI P/R acts like Alaska. Just 1 or 2 people moderate it so it can follow what a single person believes, if they want to act ruthlessly.
Wacky Wikipedia is even worse, having little oversight.
One person dictatorships are not necessarily bad as Matthew shows Live and Let’s Fly is great!
I wouldn’t put any stock into what the losers in Omni think. I’ve seen less mental illness on Reddit and they are nothing but leaches on society. Take a look at any of the covid or election threads there if you want to lose faith in society.
The root of the problem is Alaska even having a forum to have such a discussion. It never ends productively for everyone. Especially since Alaska wants to pick and choose how to moderate it. That never ends well either.
Without reading the entire discussion in Alaska World, I suspect Brown’s rhetoric concerning the Equality Act (endangering the Church, children, parenting, and violence against women) very political after previously being suspended for the petition to depoliticizing Alaska. It was a taunt. The comments that followed should not be excused on an internal space. The comments from the union reps (bag them) will get a settlement. But from the the airline, without more information, I’m not as certain.
Isn’t sexual orientation and gender identity a protected class? Just because your individual interpretation of Christianity somehow tells you to not like gay or trans people doesn’t make you exempt from discrimination. She wasn’t dismissed for being a “Christian,” she was dismissed for speech that ran contrary to the company’s mission. How are they not free to dismiss the FAs over that? Alaska is a private company and the women can still go to church on Sunday if they want to. If my sincerely held religious beliefs did not allow me to work alongside women, and I refused to do so, my firing wouldn’t be illegal.
Key in what you said: “and I refused to do so”
I have no idea what these ladies actually thought about LGBTQIA+ people (versus their civil rights, which it seems clear they oppose), but the moment they treated them poorly, they should have been fired. Discussing discrimination is very different than treating a passenger poorly. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes, but so is religion. Someone cannot be fired for a *viewpoint* based upon a sincerely-held religious belief. Once that viewpoint manifests itself in action, i.e. passenger treatment, then protection ends.
I appreciate what you’re saying in action vs thought, and we agree there. It seems to me, however, that any sort of thought can be chalked up to religion and it’s somehow protected. If I said POC shouldn’t be hired because of a biblical (or koranic or whatever) interpretation, am I protected from a private company dismissing me based on my speech alone? In the case of the FAs, it was their speech, not religion, that led to their dismissal. Surely thousands more employees claim to be Christian, and they weren’t dismissed.
You could justify any action on religion, and I think that’s why you need to look at the case’s specific circumstances. Professing their opinion on a company website is not a tenant of their beliefs. If I went in my corporate intranet and said what they said, I would expect dismissal.
They sound like two a-holes using “religion” as a shield for their views not being a reason to be fired.
Great points Jerry, thanks!
Mathew. Lots to unpack here but you claiming you have no idea what these two persons think about LGBTQ people is a disingenuous to the max.
In their comments they specifically linked non heterosexuals as immoral
That’s bull.
I’ve been trying to figure out your faith and see my fears of your self professed faith that you share is built not on love but some aspect of your psychological needs. Fail
I’m not clicking on any of your stories. Best Wishes
For the record Bill, I support your rights. And I love you too.
Second, some Christians may not support your civil rights as a gay man…but genuinely love you and oppose a litany of the rights you hold dear because they sincerely believe it is to protect you from the wrath of God.
I don’t think that is the best way to approach public policy, especially in a land with separation between church and state. Like you, I also think holy text is more nuanced than many make it out to be.
You should stop making unhelpful assumptions.
What a bunch of Christian baloney – I love you but don’t want you to have any rights. The Christian right is as evil as they come. Brainwashed to believe in a fairy tale god and prophet. Bunch of bigots.
Whether they are misguided or not is a different issue as to whether there is any animus.
Separation of church and state. It begins and ends there. By supporting the Equality Act and creating safe and welcoming spaces for LGBTQ+ customers and employees, Alaska isn’t infringing on its Christian employees or their right to practice their religion. The religious right is the element here that consistently, often brutally, and in many cases, illegally (by funneling donations to politicians), impose their views on everyone else. The solution here is to strip religious entities that wish to play in the political arena of their tax exemptions. The two employees here have zero right to complain. They can change jobs if AS’s culture doesn’t suit them.
The case of Lacey is clear-cut: she wrote a petition asking to stop a stupid and dangerous policy of defunding the police as well as blatant racism towards White people – AP guidelines be damned, if Black is to be capitlized so is White. The second one is also clear-cut: a right wing, religious extremist who tried to push her hateful agenda on an especially sensitive group should be fired – and so should be all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists who think the same.
Capitalized, of course.
What blatant racism towards White people?
BLM is a racist organization towards White people.
Man, it’s the same every single time.
Christian: “I’m being persecuted for my religious beliefs!”
Anyone else: “You’re being persecuted for wanting to feed the poor?”
“No….”
“You’re being persecuted for honoring your parents?”
“Come on…”
“Well what beliefs are you being persecuted for??”
“Oh you know which ones!!!”
You’re perfectly free to be a bigot. You’re also free to think you’re not a bigot because you’re just doing what your religion tells you to (although in this case, you should look at Matthew 7:15.) But your employer is also within their rights to say they don’t want to keep people who are so oblivious to their bigotry that they don’t have the good sense to hide it at work.
I have said it before, this thing about political and philosophical views having employment repercussions is plainly absurd and certainly at least frowned upon, if not completely illegal, in most of the developed world.
Given that most big employers derive benefit from the state (whether it’s direct financing during a pandemic or credit crisis, selling goods and services to government agencies or, at the very least, a stable regulatory environment and a legal system that safeguards their property rights), saying something like ‘it’s a free market, they can get rid of people for whatever reason’ is anything from naive to disingenuous- the person they fired hasn’t only contributed to their profits as a staff member, but also very much in their capacity as taxpayer.
Agreed.
It sounds to me like you’re making an argument for China’s economic model where large businesses, while enriching their executives, and nominally private, are really just agents of the state.
Not making a case for corporatism, just pointing out that it isn’t just a China thing. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
I do not understand any of this. Most large companies and corporations have “ethics standards and codes of conduct”. And I hope CEOs, admin and staff make an attempt to follow the recommended practices.
All should try to keep “religion” ie the “Church” out of it as much as possible. The AA flight attendants were using “their Church” against what I believe to be the principles of “my church” in a private/public corporation.
“Shut up and do your job”.
They stand to gain $$$,$$$ out of their bitchin which is the “In God we Trust” part.
Isn’t the point that Alaska invited discussion in Alaksa’s World (employee forum)? Even if the concerns were not valid, wasn’t it a teaching moment rather than to say that we are firing you because we don’t agree with your POV?
If I was a flight attendant, I would be more concerned about flying in the 737 then any policy the airline executives might champion for the year.
Having met you in person I can verify you live what you preach. No individual can accept the gospel until the Holy Spirit makes the call to accept the wrong doing in their lives and invites His work to transform their lives.
No group or religion deserves to be elevated to a status above anyone else.
If it were Muslim flight attendants refusing to serve alcohol or pork the “Christians” would be going ballistic.
We live in a secular country. By design. Deal with it or move.