In a recent judicial development, the Northern District of Texas Judge Brantley Starr, who is known internally as the nephew of Ken Starr, ordered Southwest Airlines’ in-house legal team to participate in “religious freedom” training offered by a Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF is recognized for its support of prejudiced web designers and its contribution to legal debates over free speech.
This unusual ruling comes out of a discrimination case in which the flight attendant Charlene Carter was dismissed from employment due to her social media posts about abortion. Implicit in these posts was her outrage that her union dues were being utilized to support causes she found objectionable, such as Planned Parenthood and the 2017 Women’s March. This public documentation of her condemnation led to her termination under Southwest’s civility policies. Despite winning her discrimination suit, Judge Starr appeared unsatisfied with Southwest’s following actions.
In a notice required by the court, Southwest was to inform its staff that it will refrain from discriminating against employees based on their religious beliefs and practices. Southwest’s subsequent statement said, “the court ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” Judge Starr, however, felt it lacked any mention of federal laws, such as Title VII, that prohibit discrimination.
Further criticism was placed on Southwest’s reminder to employees to respect the company’s civility policies. Starr warned that if the company keeps reminding its employees about the availability of sanctions for violating those policies, it may find itself neglecting the precedence of religious freedom protections over company civility policies.
Interestingly, Starr adheres to a textualist philosophy in law interpretation which may prove relevant in any discussion about his ruling. Furthermore, previous decisions of the ADF express an interesting dichotomy in upholding free speech rights as they have contested the rights of protest at their own events in a Yale Law School free speech controversy. It seems that the limit and regulation of these rights are adjusted according to who is on the receiving end.
For a more comprehensive analysis of the case and Judge Starr’s decision, visit this direct link to the complete article.