Case Explained: BROWN, ET AL. V. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-24 Docket: 2:22-cv-00668- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alaska Airlines, Inc., and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA AFL-CIO (AFA), remanding the employment discrimination case for further proceedings. The court held that plaintiffs Marli Brown and Lacey Smith demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether they were terminated because of their religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state anti-discrimination laws, and whether AFA discriminated against them or acquiesced in their termination based on those beliefs. The court applied the standard for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiffs. Under Title VII’s “but-for” causation standard and the burden-shifting framework of *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green*, the panel found that Brown posted a facially religious statement on an internal company forum which Alaska understood as religious; combined with internal communications disparaging religious faith and the use of company policies as a pretext, a jury could find her termination was motivated by religion. Regarding Smith, whose post was not explicitly religious but referenced “morality,” the court found a genuine dispute because Alaska treated her case in conjunction with Brown’s, knew the context involved religious concerns, and offered reasons for termination that a jury could view as pretextual. Additionally, the court held that the Railway Labor Act’s duty of fair representation does not impliedly preempt plaintiffs’ state law anti-discrimination claims against the union, aligning with the Second and Eighth Circuits and reasoning that federal labor law and state anti-discrimination laws work in tandem rather than conflict. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the district court for trial on the merits of the Title VII and state law claims against both the airline and the union, as the lower court’s dismissal was erroneous due to unresolved factual disputes regarding discriminatory intent. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.