The Case of Flight Attendants Brown and Smith: A Lesson for Corporate America

The situation involving flight attendants Marley Brown and Lacey Smith serves as a warning to corporate America about the consequences of prioritizing ideological conformity over religious freedom.

In February 2021, Alaska Airlines publicly declared its support for an equality law through its internal communications platform, Alaska’s World. The airline encouraged employees to share their thoughts, promoting a dialogue that emphasized respect for one another’s differences.

Brown and Smith took this encouragement seriously.

Both expressed their concerns regarding the legislation, citing their Christian beliefs. Brown stated that the Equality Act could “put the church at risk” and “eliminate conscience protections.” Smith questioned, “Is it feasible for companies to dictate morality?”

However, Alaska Airlines responded by investigating and dismissing both women on the same day, alleging they breached anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

In essence, the airline deemed their modest, widespread religious concerns about a contentious federal law as unacceptable harassment in a forum it had established for open discussion.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with this approach.

The court characterized Brown’s post as an expression of religious belief, acknowledging that both Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants’ union understood this context.

An internal email revealed the mindset behind the firings. One legal department staff member remarked that employees “actually have no right to believe that LGBTQ rights are ‘immoral,'” to which a vice president responded with agreement.

This exchange touches on the core issue.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against religious discrimination in the workplace, defining religion broadly to include all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief.

Employers cannot sidestep this mandate by reclassifying religious beliefs as harassment.

Yet, many companies are increasingly viewing religious objections to progressive policies as discriminatory. This shift threatens the very civil rights laws designed to protect religious expression.

What’s particularly alarming in this case is that the very platform where Brown and Smith expressed their concerns was created by Alaska Airlines.

The company not only encouraged employees to voice their opinions but also aimed to cultivate a “safe space culture” for open dialogue. They were aware that such discussions could elicit religious objections, yet they dismissed the employee who raised these concerns.

Justice Daniel Bress, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, clearly stated the dilemma: “Alaska created a forum for employees to engage in controversial discussions and subsequently fired Mr. Brown for expressing religious objections that the company had anticipated.”

The court indicated that a reasonable jury could conclude that Alaska Airlines’ reasons for termination were merely pretexts. They might find that the airline used its employee policies as a cover to dismiss Mr. Brown due to his religious beliefs.

The actions of the union further complicate matters.

The Association of Flight Attendants was supposed to represent Brown and Smith, but instead, its leaders belittled and mocked their religious concerns.

In a message to Alaska Airlines executives, the union’s president remarked, “I wish fewer people would struggle to align their faith with inclusivity.” The court noted that this statement could be seen as disrespectful toward religious beliefs.

Another union member even suggested a violent metaphor involving Brown and Smith, revealing a lack of impartiality.

Such comments demonstrate a disdain for religious beliefs, which is exactly the kind of animosity that Title VII aims to combat.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling clarifies an important distinction.

Employers can safeguard their employees from genuine harassment, but there must be a clear line drawn between disparaging comments about colleagues and an employee’s dissent regarding company policy or advocacy on hot-button issues.

Brown and Smith did not insult anyone; they merely voiced concerns over laws impacting religious freedoms.

While businesses have a vested interest in upholding a productive work environment, they cannot enforce ideological homogeneity on controversial topics concerning law, ethics, and societal standards.

Fostering a diverse range of opinions should be the aim; penalizing employees for their religious views contradicts corporate commitments and risks violating federal regulations.

The right to religious freedom isn’t a courtesy handed out at an employer’s whim. It is a fundamental civil right.

This protection holds particular significance in workplaces, which consume a large portion of Americans’ daily lives.

Employers genuinely committed to diversity and inclusion must allow space for employees of faith.

The Ninth Circuit now asserts that Brown and Smith provided sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that Alaska Airlines and the union discriminated against them based on their religious beliefs.

There’s optimism that when this case reaches trial, the jury will recognize the significance of these issues.