Southwest Airlines Faces Second Round of Sanctions in Litigation Over Flight Attendant’s Discriminatory Firing at Union Behest
Company already faced sanctions for not making witness available for deposition, now faces discipline for misleading employees about judge’s order
Dallas, TX (August 14, 2023) – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas last week issued a second round of sanctions against lawyers from Southwest Airlines, stemming from a federal discrimination case in which flight attendant Charlene Carter sued both the airline and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 556 for firing her over voicing religious objections to the union’s political stances. Carter, who is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, received a $5.1 million jury verdict in her case last June and a favorable court ruling last December.
District Court Judge Brantley Starr’s current order results from a motion for sanctions Carter’s attorneys filed in December 2022. Carter’s motion contended that Southwest management, in the wake of the December ruling against the airline, had failed to follow the District Court’s instructions to inform flight attendants that the airline “may not discriminate” against flight attendants on the basis of religion, and had instead issued a “Recent Court Decision” notice to flight attendants stating the airline “does not discriminate” on the basis of religion. Carter’s December motion argued that Southwest further breached the Court’s instructions by subsequently issuing an “Inflight Information On the Go” memo to flight attendants, conveying the airline would scrutinize their union-related and religious speech in the same way it did with Carter.
Judge Starr’s order from last week granted Carter’s motion for sanctions and castigated Southwest’s lawyers for blatantly ignoring the court’s instructions.
“…Southwest’s notice communicated that there’s nothing to see here—aside from the Court’s bequeathing Southwest a badge of honor for not discriminating (which the Court did not do). Not content with merely inverting the Court’s notice, Southwest also sent a memo to its flight attendants the same day, stating that its employees must abide by the types of policies over which Southwest fired Carter and that it believed its firing of Carter was justified because of those policies,” Judge Starr’s order reads. “It’s hard to see how Southwest could have violated the notice requirement more.”
“…Southwest devoted diligence and energy only to circumventing the Court’s order—not to complying with it,” reads the order, rejecting a substantial compliance defense proffered by Southwest’s lawyers. “The…documents with privileged information indicate that decision was willful—not accidental.”
Southwest Already Faced Sanctions for Not Making Witness Available
Judge Starr’s order this week, which Southwest says they will appeal, is not the first time Southwest has faced discipline for its conduct during this litigation. In November, the District Court slammed the airline with sanctions after it failed to make flight attendant Brett Nevarez available for a deposition in the case.
According to the November order granting sanctions against Southwest, the airline’s management did not modify Nevarez’s flight schedule so he could actually attend the deposition. “[T]he Court didn’t order Defendants to sternly exhort Nevarez. It ordered Defendants to ‘ma[k]e [him] available . . . for deposition.’ Defendants didn’t rearrange Nevarez’s flight schedule or otherwise take any action to ensure his availability,” the order said.
“Thus, the Court concludes that Defendants violated its discovery order to make Nevarez available for his deposition,” read the order.
“Southwest’s repeated recalcitrance toward following court orders is shameful but not particularly surprising,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The airline’s management already cooperated with TWU union bosses in the discriminatory and illegal firing of Charlene Carter, so it was obvious long before the sanctions that the company is willing to flout the law and undermine the rights of its employees.”
“Hopefully the court’s most recent order provides hope to other independent-minded workers that their right to express their religious dissent against union and company political agendas cannot so easily be waved away,” Mix added.
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
Please stow your religious objections: TWU union bosses forced Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post to fund the union in violation of her religious beliefs and federal law.
KNOXVILLE, TN – Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post filed a federal lawsuit in November against Transport Workers Union of America Local 577 (TWU) because the union refused to accommodate her religious beliefs. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Post is a Christian, and she objects to funding the TWU on religious grounds. As recognized in the 2015 EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Supreme Court decision, Post is not required to satisfy any special requirements to merit religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To exercise her rights, Post sent two letters to union officials making them aware of her objection and asking that her dues payments be redirected to charity.
EEOC Issues “Right to Sue” Letter to Union Objector
When TWU officials refused this request, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the union.
The EEOC was unable to resolve Post’s charge, but it issued a “Right to Sue” letter in August 2020, allowing her to file a federal lawsuit against the union to protect her rights. Post then filed a complaint in federal court alleging TWU officials illegally discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her and threatening to revoke her bidding privileges.
Bidding privileges control a flight attendant’s ability to schedule trips, work, vacations and days off. Post asked the court for an order stopping TWU officials from requiring her and other employees to pay union fees that violate their sincere religious beliefs.
Post’s lawsuit also alleges that union officials violated the United States Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, which require union officials to follow specific procedures to demand forced dues payments. The union did not follow those procedures here.
Union officials did not provide a notice of how the forced-fee amount was calculated and an audit of the union’s financial records. Nor did they give a notice of the procedure to challenge the fee amount.
Federal Law Prevents Union Threats to Workplace Privileges
Even though she lives in Tennessee, which has enacted Right to Work protections so workers who object to union membership can freely abstain from funding union activities for any reason, Post is subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because she works for an airline.
The RLA overrides state Right to Work laws and allows union officials to compel union fees, but only “as a condition of continued employment.” The RLA does not permit forced-dues payments based on any other condition — such as bidding privileges. Post’s Foundation staff attorneys argue that TWU’s monopoly bargaining agreement with Allegiant is invalid because it requires dues payments to maintain bidding privileges, whereas payment “as a condition of continued employment” is the only legal forced unionism agreement under the RLA.
“Annlee Post and others like her should not have to choose between privileges at work and their religious beliefs,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “TWU bosses knew about Ms. Post’s objections, but refused to accommodate them as longstanding federal law requires. They instead threatened to take away her bidding privileges, simply because she would not fund their organization in violation of her religious faith.
“This case is a reminder of why no worker should be forced to fund a union with which he or she disagrees, no matter whether their objection is religious or for any other reason,” Semmens said.
