After Congress passed the Equality Act in early 2021, Alaska Airlines pledged its support to prohibit “discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity” applicable in many fields, including transportation, which aligned with the Equality Act. Two Alaska Airlines employees, Marli Brown and Lacey Smith, who worked for the company as flight attendants, were fired for their comments concerning the Airlines' support of the Equality Act. Compelled by their Christian faith, according to court documents, Brown left comments on the internal employee message board which noted that Alaska Airlines endangered ‘the Church’, suppressed religious freedom, and violated the constitution through the Civil Rights Act. Smith, in agreement, added that the Equality Act was used by the company to regulate the morality of its employees and customers. The First Liberty Institute, which represents both plaintiffs, additionally argued that the Equality Act threatens religious liberty, and threatens those who do not believe the same as the government in terms of sexual orthodoxy. Alaska Airlines Senior VP of People responded to Smith’s comment stating that the Act is not meant to ‘regulate morality’, but instead protect customers and employees who identify as LGBTQ+ from discrimination. Both Smith and Brown’s comments were removed from the internal employee message board due to ‘hateful, discriminatory, and offensive’ language, while also having their flight shifts suspended while they were under investigation, then evidently terminated. In 2022, a federal lawsuit was filed on the plaintiff's behalf, claiming religious discrimination, failure to grant religious accommodation, and a hostile work environment that penalized them for expressing their beliefs by Alaska Airlines.
Considering the facts of this case, it is important to understand the rights of the plaintiffs, Alaska Airlines, and the customers in which it serves. According to the plaintiffs, Alaska Airlines discriminated against them for religious reasons and therefore terminated them due to their comments on the internal employee message board. The First Liberty Institute also declared that it was a violation of their state and federal laws to be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs and expression. While this is correct, factually, Alaska Airlines VP of Inflight stated in response that the plaintiffs violated the Airlines’ discrimination policy by their use of the term ‘opposite sex’, as it presumes there are only two sexes. The plaintiffs justify their comments using the fact they were ‘compelled by their Christian faith’ to post such comments, explaining the claim of religious discrimination against them. Was it constitutionally religious discrimination by Alaska Airlines who terminated the plaintiffs based on their comments regarding the Equality Act on an internal employee message board?
In my opinion, while the two terminated employees have every right to publish religious content and explain their beliefs, the forum in which they commented was private and owned by Alaska Airlines. Therefore this is a limited forum, and Alaska Airlines has the right to consider the comments posted and control the content. I believe that Alaska Airlines is practicing neutrality, as they are simply trying to prevent discrimination in a private setting (an internal employee message board), and this has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Despite this, I do think Alaska Airlines could have taken less restrictive means, such as not terminating the plaintiffs and instead implementing an educational course or providing clearer guidelines for message board speech. While there are terms by which Alaska Airlines and the plaintiffs, Brown and Smith, can agree based on their termination, I do not believe there was religious discrimination specifically by Alaska Airlines. In regards to the comments, the centrality of the plaintiff's beliefs is not important, and instead, the anti-Equality Act beliefs are the most compelling points made by Brown and Smith. Their Christian beliefs, which could be the sincere motive of the comments, are not made clear, and therefore Alaska Airlines only can understand the comments from a secular, religious-free, neutral perspective. Therefore, in this case, the Airline removed the plaintiff's comments based on their discriminatory content, with no consideration of the plaintiff's religious beliefs.
In my opinion, this means Alaska Airlines was being neutral regarding the comment on their own, private forum, and understood the comment for the content that was written. This case is important because it draws the line between gender and religious discrimination. As a result, this case intersects legality, religion, and gender, while also trying to decipher if and how discrimination is occurring. Interestingly, this case, deals with the fact that the plaintiffs are discriminated against, while Alaska Airlines argues that they were the ones being discriminatory. This case differs from Lamb’s Chapel and Good News Club because it deals with a limited private forum, not a limited public forum or an open forum. Both of these cases deal with religious content and groups in public schools, and Alaska Airlines is not a public institution that must allow public forums. Therefore, in conclusion, it was not unconstitutional religious discrimination against the plaintiffs by Alaska Airlines regarding their comments.
https://firstliberty.org/cases/alaska-airlines/#simple1
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/2-flight-attendants-sue-alaska-airlines-claim-they-were-canceled-for-religious-beliefs
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5
5 comments:
Hi Alex!
This was a super interesting post, and I agree with your holding that the two employees of Alaska Airlines were not discriminated against under the policies of the airline. The issue of the forum arises again, and I think you do a very good job at describing particularly why, although beliefs of Alaska Airlines conflicted with the personal beliefs of the two employees, the rejection of the employees’ ideas is completely acceptable. Additionally, I think you make a good point that there should have been an alternative method of handling this situation other than terminating the employees. I’m wondering if this is the general practice among the majority of airlines or if there is an educational component implemented in some. This is something that I’d be interested in, because understanding the expectations that you have an employee is equally as important as the operations of the job itself.
Great post Alex! You picked an interesting case and you laid out the facts pristinely. I also agree with you analysis. Alaska Airlines did not religiously discriminate against the two plaintiffs in this case. Since it was a limited forum Alaska Airlines had the right to monitor the comments and take action if comments stepped out of line. The plaintiffs were voicing their opinion which happened to be rooted in religion, but violated the equality act that Alaska Airlines abides by. One more point I would like to add is I feel as though Alaska Airlines could have handled this situation better. I don't think the plaintiffs should have been fired for voicing their religious opinion for the first time on the forum. However, Alaska Airlines did not violate the plaintiffs first amendment rights in this case.
Alex, I really enjoyed your post. You articulated the facts of the case and your subsequent argument extremely clearly. I agree with you that Alaska Airlines has the right to control the content posted on their limited forum but that less restrictive means could have been taken. I believe that the actions taken by Alaska Airlines did not place a burden on the religious free exercise of the plaintiffs. If any burden was placed, I think it would be indirect. I believe there was a compelling state interest in passing the Equality Act to protect against the discrimination of LGBTQ+ individuals and that this interest outweighs any indirect burden that is placed upon these plaintiffs. Again, excellent post!
Good post. I agree that Alaska Airlines was impartial enough and accepted the post's content. This case seems important because it draws lines separating discrimination on the basis of gender and religion. As you point out, it is because of this, the purpose of this case is to determine whether or not discrimination is occurring by combining problems of gender, religion, and law. I also agree that it's interesting to notice that the plaintiffs' experiences of discrimination are at the focus of this complaint, despite Alaska Airlines' claims that they were the ones who discriminated. You did a good job also in pointing out that this case differs from Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club in that it involves a limited private forum as opposed to a limited public or open forum, so the air line was ultimately on the right side.
Nice post Alex! I think the policy does place a burden on the employees' free exercise. Can they be expected to use language that reflects beliefs they do not share? This reminds me of the case with the CVS employee earlier this semester, and most commenters ruled in the opposite direction: favoring the employee's free exercise. Nevertheless, I think your distinction here between a private limited and public limited forum is compelling, and agree with your decision.
Post a Comment