After nearly a decade of litigation, the long-running case between Southwest Airlines and a pro-life flight attendant has finally reached a new milestone: the money has been paid…to the tune of nearly $1 million.
Southwest Airlines Finally Pays Flight Attendant Nearly $1 Million As Long-Running Abortion Case Nears End
Southwest Airlines has now paid nearly $1 million in damages to flight attendant Charlene Carter, bringing a major chapter of one of the most consequential airline employment cases in recent memory to a close.
A newly filed “Satisfaction of Judgment” confirms Carter received $946,102.87 after nine years of litigation against both Southwest Airlines and the Transport Workers Union.
A Long Road From Firing To Payout
Carter was fired in 2017 after sending graphic anti-abortion messages to union leadership following the union’s support for the Women’s March.
Southwest argued the messages constituted harassment.
Carter argued they were protected religious expression and a valid expression of disagreement for her union dues being used to support political causes she profoundly opposed.
A federal jury agreed with Carter in 2022, finding that both Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal law. The original verdict totaled roughly $5 million, though that was later reduced due to statutory caps.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that ruling.
Now, nearly a decade after the dispute began, the damages have finally been paid.
But This Case Still Isn’t Fully Over
Even with the payout, the legal fight is not entirely finished.
As I’ve covered previously, this case has already spilled into contempt proceedings after Southwest’s response to a court-ordered notice to employees was deemed inadequate. That issue remains unresolved: the district court is still considering whether Southwest should face further penalties for how it communicated the ruling to its flight attendants.
I’ve written about this case extensively because it sits at the intersection of several uncomfortable questions:
- How far does workplace speech protection extend? (as we also discussed yesterday)
- Where is the line between harassment and protected expression?
- How should airlines handle politically charged employee conduct?
This was never a clean case. Carter’s messages were undeniably graphic and offensive to some. But the court ultimately concluded that Southwest and the union crossed a legal line in how they responded.
A Washington Post editorial sides with Carter and makes clear the troubling way her union mocked her and anyone else who disagreed with leadership. It’s worth a read.
Discovery in the case unearthed how TWU officials really think about members who don’t follow their marching orders. One TWU activist advocated figurative “targeted assassinations” of members who dissented from leadership in an email that was forwarded to [union president Audrey] Stone. A different union critic was likened to a “cancer” that must be “eradicated,” according to emails admitted at trial.
Wow…
CONCLUSION
The nearly $1 million payout marks a significant milestone, but not the end, of this case.
Southwest has now paid for its decision. The remaining question is whether the airline will face additional consequences over how it handled the aftermath.
Either way, this case will continue to shape how airlines deal with employee speech, religion, and politics for years to come.
> Read More About This Case:
- Southwest Airlines Returns To Court To Battle Anti-Abortion Flight Attendant
- Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant Wins Lawsuit Over Abortion Advocacy
“How should airlines handle politically charged employee conduct?”
Well, all employers need to grapple with this question. I submit that airlines, like other employers, first must distinguish between public/customer facing conduct and conduct which stay within the employer.
Agreed. Specifically within closed forums on platforms like Facebook.
I find myself very sympathetic to Ms. Carter if she was just protesting her union advocating for policy she was diametrically opposed to.
Moreover, the hot button issue was not one which was of the union’s essence. Their picking sides, while permissible, was gratuitous.
Right again.
This is a victory for common sense. How can a union speak up for any divisive political issue buts is members not be allowed to disagree? And they fired over it even though she just sent videos showing abortion procedures, which, YES, are barbaric and bloody.
Clearly, the airline and union could’ve handled this better (and they will learn from this). That said, who’s to say, whether political or religious beliefs are valid or not? And, would the court/jury in Texas have felt the same way if it were a Muslim supporting their ‘strongly held belief’ in Sharia law? I doubt it. As for the punitive damages, probably for the best that they reigned that in. Nearly $1 million is already a lot.
First reproductive health decisions should never have moved in a public space. No one has a right to influence the medical privacy of others. It’s not our business. Full stop. If we were concentrating on our own issues, the union would not have needed to support a rally and Carter would likely not have sent appalling emails. But that’s not the world we live in.
And this administration through the president and MAHA are ” advising ” women to use the calendar method of ineffective birth control. Ask yourself if this makes sense.
What you label as a “privacy” matter is the life or death of an unborn child. You are right that it should never have moved to public space, but that occurred when the law shielded mothers and doctors from murder. I understand that you see the matter differently, but you must understand that we cannot just take a laissez faire approach when it means that defenseless children our killed in their mother’s womb. Because I also believe in the defense of women, but that includes the unborn..
And your influence should remain your own business.
What an awful situation for Southwest.
This woman should have been fired for ranting and causing an uncomfortable, if not hostile, working environment. She should have to pay them instead.
Anti-woman women are the worst.
If a union orany other organization pushes a political issue, the members that oppose the issue they should not have to pay the cost to fund that issue. The union should stick with representing job issues.