Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA AFL-CIO in an employment discrimination action brought by two former flight attendants. The court held that the plaintiffs presented genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether Alaska terminated them and whether the union caused or acquiesced in their termination because of their religious beliefs. The court also held that the Railway Labor Act did not impliedly preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law anti-discrimination claims against the union, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Brown presented a genuine dispute of material fact that Alaska Airlines terminated her because of her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII and corresponding state anti-discrimination laws.
- Whether Smith presented a genuine dispute of material fact that Alaska Airlines terminated her because of her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII and corresponding state anti-discrimination laws.
- Whether the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA AFL-CIO attempted to cause or acquiesced in the plaintiffs' terminations because of their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII.
- Whether the Railway Labor Act's implied duty of fair representation preempted Brown's Washington and Smith's Oregon anti-discrimination claims against the union.
Holdings
- Brown presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact whether Alaska terminated her because of her religious beliefs, rather than because she violated neutral anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies.
- Smith presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact whether Alaska terminated her because of her religious beliefs, despite the fact that her comment did not expressly invoke religion.
- Brown and Smith each presented a genuine dispute of material fact whether the union discriminated against them, adversely affected their employment status, or caused or attempted to cause Alaska to terminate them because of their religious beliefs.
- The Railway Labor Act's implied duty of fair representation does not preempt Oregon and Washington anti-discrimination claims against a union.
Key quotations
“We hold that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact whether Alaska terminated them because of their religious beliefs and whether AFA attempted to cause or acquiesced in their firing on this unlawful basis.” (6)
“The issue here is instead a factual one of whether Brown was in fact fired for engaging in discrimination or harassment, or whether Alaska instead used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs.” (29)
“Instead, “each serves to reinforce the anti-discriminatory purpose of the other,” “work[ing] in tandem to protect union members from invidious discrimination in all of its forms.”” (45-46)
Factual background
Alaska Airlines permitted employees to comment on an internal communication forum concerning the company's support for the proposed Equality Act. Brown posted an expressly religious objection, while Smith asked whether morality could be regulated; Alaska investigated and terminated both employees under its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The union participated extensively in the investigations and grievance processes, and several union representatives made disparaging comments about the plaintiffs and their views. Brown and Smith claimed that Alaska and the union acted because of their religious beliefs rather than because of neutral policy violations.
Procedural history
Brown and Smith sued Alaska Airlines and their union, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and Washington and Oregon anti-discrimination laws. The district court dismissed the state-law claims against the union under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the Railway Labor Act's duty of fair representation preempted those claims, and later granted summary judgment to Alaska and the union on the federal and remaining state claims. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning the alleged religious discrimination and that the Railway Labor Act did not impliedly preempt the state anti-discrimination claims against the union.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including allowing the Title VII and corresponding state-law discrimination claims against Alaska and the union to proceed, and allowing the state anti-discrimination claims against the union to proceed without RLA duty-of-fair-representation preemption.