The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed a district court judge's order requiring religious liberty training for three in-house lawyers at Southwest Airlines. The judge ordered the training after finding Southwest in contempt for messaging sent to employees about a flight attendant's lawsuit claiming religious discrimination.
The ruling offers important lessons for employers on handling court orders stemming from employment claims.
In the underlying lawsuit, Charlene Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, et al., Carter accused Southwest of terminating her employment for objecting on religious grounds to her union's participation in a protest sponsored by Planned Parenthood. Southwest claimed that it terminated Carter's employment for violating its company civility and anti-harassment policies, not for her religious beliefs.
Carter prevailed at a jury trial before U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas. Judge Starr awarded Carter $800,000 in damages, ordered Southwest to reinstate her, and directed the airline to notify its flight attendants that Southwest "may not discriminate" based on religion.
Following Judge Starr's entry of judgment against Southwest, he held the airline in contempt. He determined that Southwest failed to comply with his judgment when it informed its employees that the airline "does not discriminate" based on religion (rather than "may not discriminate" based on religion). Southwest also published an internal memo indicating that Carter's conduct was "inappropriate, harassing, and offensive" and in violation of its policies. The memo concluded that Southwest was "extremely disappointed with the court's ruling and [was] appealing the decision" to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Starr required three of Southwest's in-house lawyers to undergo religious liberty training as a contempt sanction.
Southwest appealed the contempt order, and the Fifth Circuit reversed the sanction, saying that the training "would do little to compel compliance with the order or to compensate Carter." The panel reasoned that "[t]he attorneys ordered to attend training were not involved in the decision to terminate Carter, and no evidence offered at trial suggests they demonstrated animus against Carter or her religious beliefs."
The court continued, "[W]hen a court's contempt sanction in a civil matter is both overbroad in scope and undoubtedly punitive in nature, the judiciary risks appearing contemptuous like the contemnor."
The Fifth Circuit also passed on other portions of the jury verdict, affirming some and reversing other aspects.
The opinion is a reminder that in fashioning a remedy for civil contempt, the punishment must be remedial and proportionate. Here, however, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "the sanction plainly exceeded remedial bounds and sought to punish Southwest's attorneys[.]"
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
