Southwest Airlines' court-ordered 'religious-liberty' training: freedom or indoctrination?
Did a federal judge go too far when he ordered airline employees to attend 'religious liberty' training from a conservative Christian group?
When federal judge Brantley Starr ordered Southwest Airlines to reinstate former flight attendant Charlene Carter, he wryly noted in his ruling that "bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn't fly at all with Southwest in this case." Carter, to whom Starr also awarded $800,000 in damages, had been fired by the company for sending graphic anti-abortion messages to her local union president, calling the group's participation in the 2017 Women's March on Washington "despicable" due to Planned Parenthood serving as a co-sponsor of the event. As part of his ruling, Starr also ordered Southwest to notify its flight attendants that the company "may not discriminate" against employees for their religious beliefs and statements. Southwest, in subsequent memos to its staff, acknowledged that the court had "ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate" based on religious beliefs, while reiterating the company policies on civility it had used to justify Carter's firing.
Incensed at the subtle change in wording between his order and Southwest's memo, as well as with the company's reiteration of its civility standards, Starr excoriated the airline in a blistering 29-page memo filed last month. In it, the judge concluded that Southwest's "chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom" necessitated, among other things, that three of its attorneys attend a "training on religious freedom" facilitated by the Alliance Defending Freedom, self-described as "one of the leading Christian law firms" whose 1994 founding was predicated on the "goal of keeping the doors open for the Gospel." This month, Starr refused a petition to stay the order, writing that the airline's opposition is "more of a gripe than a legal objection" and that "religious liberty training won't harm Southwest."
But is mandatory training with a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion access an appropriate judicial remedy?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What the commentators said
The Alliance Defending Freedom is "no neutral, academic entity," The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus said. Instead, the group is a " full-throated, highly effective combatant in the culture wars" whose stances on reproductive health care and LGBTQ rights are "to many people particularly offensive." Countering that Marcus had "perhaps overstated matters," Reason's Walter Olson nevertheless agreed in substance that Starr's order would have been "just as improper" if it had involved the "left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center," a group that, for its part, lists the Alliance Defending Freedom as a designated "hate group."
The ADF itself has defended its training, emphasizing in a statement to The Associated Press that it focuses on "training in religious liberty law — not religious doctrine."
Starr "could have avoided criticism" had he gone to a training source that's "a little more neutral," said University of Texas Austin Law and Religion Clinic Director Steven Collis, even as he admitted to the AP that the judge was within his rights to turn to the ADF. "Use an academic instead," Collis suggested.
This case shows that religious discrimination should be taken as "seriously as discrimination based on race (or) sex," U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission head Andrea Lucas stressed to Reuters. Like Starr, Lucas was appointed by former President Donald Trump. Former EEOC Chief Council and current Rutgers University Law Professor David Lopez disagreed, telling the wire service that the case is a sign that "the court is moving into some really dangerous territory here." Speaking with the AP, Lopez added, "What happened here, I've never seen that."
What next?
Southwest has confirmed to Law.com that it plans to appeal the order, as well as Carter's jury victory at large. In the meantime, judicial watchdog and advocacy group Fix the Court has filed a complaint against Judge Starr directly, arguing in a press release that his ruling "contradicts Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct" and "demands scrutiny."
Noting that the "5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] is the most conservative in the country," The Post's Marcus predicted that Southwest's ongoing effort to stop Starr's "egregious" order "might not be the easiest lift." If Southwest's appeals effort fails, the ensuing case will be "worth watching," Reason's Olson predicted, suggesting a "significant First Amendment precedent down the road."
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Rafi Schwartz has worked as a politics writer at The Week since 2022, where he covers elections, Congress and the White House. He was previously a contributing writer with Mic focusing largely on politics, a senior writer with Splinter News, a staff writer for Fusion's news lab, and the managing editor of Heeb Magazine, a Jewish life and culture publication. Rafi's work has appeared in Rolling Stone, GOOD and The Forward, among others.
-
Big Tech's answer for AI-driven job loss: universal basic income
In The Spotlight A new study reveals the strengths and limitations
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
'I will not be silent' on Gaza, says Kamala Harris
Speed Read In a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Harris supported Israel's right to defend itself while expressing a desire to end Palestinian suffering
By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published
-
'How long can TikTok dominate as a social network?'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Is Amy Coney Barrett the Supreme Court's new swing justice?
Today's Big Question Still conservative, but independent
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Donald Trump's biggest legal threats
In Depth It's not just Jack Smith's indictments — the former president is facing a host of separate challenges from around the country
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Supreme Court rejects abortion pill challenge
Speed Read Access to mifepristone has been preserved, though some think it is only a temporary victory
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Will abortion decide the 2024 elections?
Talking Points Abortion access is on the ballot in several states and a focus in the presidential campaign. The question is whether it will boost Democrats as much as they hope.
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'The future of abortion access in many states may come down to who has the final say'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Arizona lawmakers repeal 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The state's policy was first enacted when Abraham Lincoln was president
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Sitting in judgment on Trump
Opinion Who'd want to be on this jury?
By Susan Caskie Published
-
In what states is abortion legal, illegal, and in limbo?
In The Spotlight Where American states stand on abortion care
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published