Labor unions exist for one simple reason: to protect the rights of their members in the workplace. Workers pay dues expecting that, in return, their union will advocate for and protect them.
But what happens when a union betrays its own members, actively joining forces with an employer to purge workers over their religious beliefs?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling against Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants union tells the story of a union that abandoned its duties and instead functioned as an accomplice to corporate cancel culture.
In early 2021, Alaska Airlines fired flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith after they expressed religious views over concerns in the workplace. The airline had announced on an internal forum its support for the Equality Act, a proposed bill that would amend federal law in many ways, including opening up women’s spaces to males based upon gender identity and removing protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The airline’s post invited comments and questions. In response, both women expressed sincere, faith-based concerns about the legislation. Because of those comments, both were fired.
Did the flight attendants’ union step in to defend its dues-paying members from wrongful termination? After all, the airline had a legal obligation not to discriminate against its employees based upon their religious beliefs. The union should have challenged these terminations as discriminatory.
Yet rather than serve its purpose by standing up for these two members, union leadership joined the airline in its hostility toward their beliefs.
As the Ninth Circuit’s opinion recounts, the union’s president personally reported the flight attendants’ comments to Alaska Airlines’ leadership and colluded with leadership as to the airline’s proposed response. Union representatives repeatedly disparaged the women in internal union communications, calling them “bigots” and “pukes,” and calling for “repercussions.”
The union representative who later represented Marli even went so far as to ask, “Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well”?
During oral argument, one of the Ninth Circuit judges observed to the Association of Flight Attendants lawyer that this evidence is “really, really bad for you.” Indeed, the evidence of the union’s extreme hostility toward the flight attendants because of their religious beliefs was overwhelming.
The union’s continual disparagement of Brown and Smith, and its utter failure to raise concerns about religious discrimination, violated federal law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits labor organizations from discriminating, adversely affecting employment, or causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate.
As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has explained, unions may not “knowingly acquiesce in employment discrimination against their members, join or tolerate employers’ discriminatory practices, or discriminatorily refuse to represent employees’ interests.”
The unanimous Ninth Circuit panel recognized that there was enough evidence that the union failed to oppose employment discrimination to send the case to a jury trial. Labor organizations cannot use progressive corporate initiatives as a smokescreen to strip religious employees of their livelihoods.
As the court observed, a jury could view the union representatives’ actions “as additional evidence that [Association of Flight Attendants] personnel harbored general disagreement with [the] religious beliefs, which may have affected their representation in the disciplinary process.”
When employees enter a unionized workplace, they do not forfeit their protections under Title VII simply because their religious beliefs are unpopular with union leadership. And they certainly should not be forced to fund a union that turns around and helps management punish them for their faith.
Labor organizations exist to protect workers, not to silence them. As this case shows, when a union stops representing its members and instead acts as a toady for corporate management, the law holds it accountable.
The implications of the Ninth Circuit’s decision stretch far beyond the flight deck of Alaska Airlines. It is a significant reminder for all unions and the workers they represent that civil rights protections apply to unions too. If unions wish to retain the trust of the workers who fund them, they must hold to their core purpose — protecting all employees, not just the ones whose religious beliefs are politically convenient to them. Because when a union fails to represent its members, it betrays its most basic reason for existing in the first place.
Becky Dummermuth is Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute.
Add as preferred source on Google TagsCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Opinions - Judiciary News
See All
Opinions - Judiciary The dismantling of USAID and the firing of its staff was illegal by J. Brian Atwood and Kevin E. Byrnes, opinion contributor 2 days ago Opinions - Judiciary / 2 days ago 
