Full Breakdown
Ninth Circuit Revives Religious Discrimination Claims in Alaska Airlines Case, Highlighting Ongoing Employer Tensions
7/10/2026, 2:07:41 PM
Core Event: Court Allows Flight Attendants to Pursue Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
On June 24, 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district-court summary judgment in *Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.* The panel held that genuine factual disputes exist as to whether former flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith were terminated because of their religious beliefs rather than for violating the airline’s anti-harassment policy. The decision also affirmed that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims against their union are not pre-empted by the Railway Labor Act, permitting the case to proceed to trial.
Background & Legal Context
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2020 to cover gender identity and sexual orientation, simultaneously protects employees from religious discrimination. The proposed Equality Act would codify those LGBTQ + protections at the federal level, prompting heightened workplace conflicts. Alaska Airlines posted internal support for the Equality Act in 2021; Brown and Smith responded on the company intranet with statements linking the bill to threats against the Christian church and questioning whether “a company… can regulate morality.” Their posts were removed, and the airline cited its anti-discrimination policy as the basis for termination.
Key Figures & Groups
- Marli Brown – former flight attendant, cited the Equality Act as “endangering the Christian church.”
- Lacey Smith – former flight attendant, asked whether the company could “regulate morality.”
- Alaska Airlines – employer defending the firings as policy enforcement.
- Ninth Circuit Judges – including Trump-appointed Daniel Bress, who authored the appellate opinion.
- Legal commentators – Michelle Phillips (Jackson Lewis PC), Jason Bent (Illinois Tech), Saba Bireda (Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight), and Michelle Roberts Gonzales (Hogan Lovells Cadwalader) who have advised employers on navigating the “fundamental tension” between religious accommodation and LGBTQ + anti-harassment obligations.
Why It Matters: Employer Risk Landscape
The revival signals that courts may scrutinize dismissals framed as policy enforcement when religious motivation is evident. Attorneys warn that “employers just have to be aware that there’s going to be more challenges,” prompting companies to adopt clearer anti-harassment policies, conduct neutral investigations, and train HR teams to handle conflicts without bias. The case joins recent EEOC actions against Kroger and a Seventh-Circuit settlement involving a Christian music teacher, illustrating a broader surge in litigation that pits religious expression against LGBTQ + workplace protections.
Official Statements & Responses
Alaska Airlines issued a statement affirming its commitment to protecting LGBTQ + employees and asserting that staff must “live by these same values.” Management-side counsel Michelle Phillips noted, “It’s difficult to navigate, but if you are mindful and respectful as much as possible there are strategies that can be employed to not completely eliminate but reduce risks in this area.” King & Spalding partner Anne Dana emphasized that outcomes are “fact-specific” and depend on context, prior decisions, and jurisdiction.
Criticism & Opposition
Legal scholar Jason Bent described a “fundamental tension” between accommodating religious beliefs and preventing harassment based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Hogan Lovells partner Michelle Roberts Gonzales warned that “there tends to be some difficulty in setting a hard and fast rule that can be readily applied,” underscoring the lack of a clear legal line for employers.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
District Judge Barbara Rothstein dismissed the case in 2022, finding the posts “not religious in nature.” The Ninth Circuit’s reversal highlights a split interpretation of what constitutes religious expression in the workplace, leaving open questions about the threshold for protected speech versus harassment.
Verbatim Quotes
- “It’s difficult to navigate,” — Michelle Phillips, Attorney, Jackson Lewis PC
- “There’s a “fundamental tension” between balancing religious accommodations for some workers with preventing harassment based on gender identity or sexual orientation, said Jason Bent, a professor at Illinois Tech’s Chicago-Kent College of Law.” — Jason Bent, Professor, Illinois Tech
- “If employees’ religious expression crosses over into a line of creating a hostile environment, I think courts are unlikely to find that expression to be protected,” — Saba Bireda, Partner, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight
- “Nor is the religious nature of Brown’s post undermined by the fact that more than one religion may share in the same underlying views, or that the beliefs expressed could be regarded as non-religious human values.” — Daniel Bress, Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit
- “ It’s crucial that the people deciding how to respond to employee policy violations “are removing their own personal beliefs from the decision and applying the policies neutrally and in the same way to all employees,” King & Spalding’s Dana said.” — Anne Dana, Partner, King & Spalding
The Ninth Circuit’s decision underscores an evolving legal frontier where employers must balance competing Title VII protections while mitigating the risk of costly litigation.
