Former Flight Attendants May Proceed With Religious Discrimination Claims

Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 2026 WL 1813213 (9^th Cir. 2026)

Former Alaska Airlines flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith sued their former employer for religious discrimination under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws. The airline allegedly terminated their employment following their posting comments on an internal intranet communications network in response to the company’s statement of support of the Equality Act, which was proposed federal legislation that would extend antidiscrimination protections based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Brown posted a facially religious statement that the Equality Act would “endanger the Christian church”; Smith posted a comment: “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?” The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment that the district court had entered in favor of the airline, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Brown and Smith were terminated for their religious beliefs and not for violating the company’s anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policies (as the airline contended).  The appellate court also held that plaintiffs’ state law claims against their union were not preempted by the Railway Labor Act.  Compare Jung v. Acosta, 2026 WL 1830704 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026) (anti-SLAPP motion to strike former union employees’ claims was properly granted because plaintiffs’ claims arose from an official proceeding authorized by law (union judicial panel proceedings) and plaintiffs’ claims lacked “minimal merit” and were in part preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act).