A judge has ordered three attorneys for Southwest Airlines to undergo religious liberties training after they undermined an earlier ruling in a case involving a pro-life flight attendant the airline fired.
Southwest Airlines requested a new trial after a federal judge determined that the company discriminated against one of its flight attendants because of her pro-life Christian beliefs. The company requested a new trial in paperwork filed Jan. 2, claiming the federal judge and jury made mistakes when they ruled in favor of Charlene Carter last summer.
Carter worked as a flight attendant at Southwest for nearly 21 years. In 2017, she was fired after sharing her pro-life beliefs on Facebook and speaking out against the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 spending members’ dues on pro-abortion activities.
In July, a federal district court in Dallas, Texas awarded her $5.1 million. The company also is required to give Carter back her job. But attorneys for Southwest argued in the filing that the company did not discriminate against Carter, and the ruling should be thrown out for “unfair management of the trial and other legal errors.”
And it did something else that a federal judge was not happy with.
U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr on Monday said that instead of notifying employees of their rights against religious discrimination, as he had ordered Southwest to do, the lawyers penned a memo warning workers not to violate the company policy that led it to fire the plaintiff.
Starr, a Trump appointee, gave the lawyers until Aug. 28 to attend an eight-hour training conducted by conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which is routinely involved in high-profile court cases on abortion and religious liberties. Starr cited older rulings requiring lawyers to attend continuing education or ethics training.
Southwest and the union are appealing that decision, which also required the airline to notify employees of their right to express their religious views on social media.
Starr on Monday said Southwest flouted that order by instead telling employees that “the court ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our employees for their religious practices and beliefs.”
Southwest in a memo drafted by the three lawyers – Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey, and Chris Maberry – also defended Carter’s firing and said it would continue enforcing its social media policy….
From LifeNews
The Judges decision was the correct one. Sounds like Southwest Airlines should get the Bud Light treatment.
Wish I had won the $1.5 billion Mega Millions lottery jackpot. Then my troubles would be over.
No you just get different troubles.
Sad state of affairs. The cancel culture doesn’t even want us to have an opinion on an important life and death issue.
Did you complain about cancel culture when people canceled Bud Light?
“Did you complain about cancel culture when people canceled Bud Light?” What matters here as in most things are the motives/ values behind the protest by cancellation. Those protesting Bud LIght protested the idea that a man could become a woman merely by willing it to be so, and a protest against those, like Anheuser-Busch, shoving this insanity down their throats. Southwest Airlines was protesting FOR murder in the womb, and is fighting tooth and nail any attempt by anyone to force the airline to face squarely this moral tragedy. Both protests are therefore a denial; one a denial of a most distasteful aspect of queer theory, the other a denial of the right of innocent human life, to life. Are these denials morally equivalent?
No one censored Bud Light or removed them from social media platforms. People simply quit buying their beer. Choosing to drink Modelo is not canceling Bud Light. For some, it’s simply saying that one wants to enjoy a beer without sexuality and politics going down their throats.
Southwest did not censor Charlene Carter nor remove her from social media platforms. Southwest simply stopped employing her. Choosing to hire a replacement employee is not canceling Charlene Carter.
That certainly seems like canceling. And, unjust discrimination. She has a right to share about the humanity of babies on her personal FaceBook page, They didn’t censor her, Southwest fired her. Do you honestly think that’s not canceling? What’s your definition of canceling? Regardless, the issue is unjust discrimination. And, as a former (now retired) union member, I too objected to my union’s promotion of abortion promoters. Some of my union brothers and sisters didn’t like my stand, but I wasn’t fired or kicked out of the union for it. To speak personally for preborn babies and their mothers, threatened by the violence of abortion, is not a crime and not just cause for firing. She was fired for her beliefs, which, in this case, means speaking the truth that many in power do not want to hear or have others hear.
“Choosing to hire a replacement employee is not canceling Charlene Carter.” ??!!?? To quote John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!!”
I agree that firing someone is not cancelling them.
Being cancelled is usually a fear of people who make their living in media.
You might get fired or not.
It generally means that no one will hire you or you will lose your following.
People used to get cancelled all the time but it was for immorality not morality; sometimes offending people with bad language.
Hopefully the pro-life employee doubles down on Southwest Airlines.
The devil is having a field day.
Is he winning any ribbons? I won second place in my school’s backwards race in second grade. That got me a red ribbon. Red is the color of the devil, but that’s just a coincidence. I don’t think my field day win was evil or had anything to do with the devil.