Two former Alaska Airlines flight attendants who lost their jobs after raising religious objections to the company's endorsement of the Equality Act just won a major round in federal court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide whether Lacey Smith and Marli Brown were fired because of their faith, reversing a lower court decision that had tossed their claims.
The ruling reopens one of the most closely watched religious liberty cases in corporate America and sends a pointed message to employers who wrap themselves in progressive causes while punishing workers who dissent on religious grounds.
Smith and Brown were flight attendants at Alaska Airlines in early 2021 when the company announced on its internal employee network that it would support the proposed Equality Act, legislation introduced by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in employment, housing, and other areas of federal civil rights law. The bill passed the House in February 2021. Alaska Airlines invited employees to comment on the announcement in an online forum.
They did. And it cost them their careers.
Smith posted a question in the company forum: "As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?" Brown shared a comment expressing her sincere religious beliefs that the Equality Act would adversely affect women, girls, and people of faith. Neither employee used slurs. Neither threatened anyone. Both spoke from conviction.
Alaska Airlines characterized the comments as "discriminatory," "hateful," and "offensive." The company investigated both women and fired them. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Alaska Airlines for comment on the ruling but received no response.
Smith and Brown, represented by First Liberty Institute, sued Alaska Airlines and their flight attendants' union, alleging religious discrimination. A lower court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit has now reversed that outcome and sent the case back for a jury to weigh the evidence.
Stephanie Taub, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, argued the case before the Ninth Circuit in August 2025. After the ruling, she issued a statement that cut straight to the legal stakes:
"The Ninth Circuit's decision today reinforces that federal civil rights laws protect people of faith from discrimination by their employer or their union. You cannot be fired because your employer does not like your religious beliefs."
The oral argument in August offered a preview of how the three-judge panel viewed the case. Just The News reported that the panel, which included both Trump and Obama nominees, strongly signaled that the lower court had erred in dismissing the lawsuit. The judges repeatedly challenged lawyers for Alaska Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants union over damning internal communications and the airline's inconsistent enforcement of its own conduct policies.
One piece of evidence stood out. Internal union communications revealed an AFA representative asking whether they could "put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well." The union's governing body president, Jeffrey Peterson, called one plaintiff's post "reprehensible" and said "there should be repercussions."
Judge Kenneth Lee told the AFA's lawyer, Ben Berger, that the communications between union leaders were "really, really bad for you."
That is not the language of a neutral workplace investigation. That is the language of institutional hostility toward employees who hold the wrong beliefs.
Perhaps the most revealing detail to emerge from the case involves Alaska Airlines' own track record of tolerating heated employee speech, when the subject was different. Just The News reported that Alaska Airlines had allowed a heated open discussion about its racial equity policy just one week before firing Smith and Brown for commenting on the Equality Act. The plaintiffs' lawyer argued this inconsistency demonstrated religious animus: the company permitted robust, even contentious debate on one politically sensitive topic but punished employees who spoke up on another.
That contrast matters. If a company invites employees to share their views on a policy question, then fires the ones whose views are rooted in religious conviction, the company isn't enforcing a neutral workplace standard. It is enforcing an ideological one.
Smith told Fox News Digital that the ruling carries meaning well beyond her own case:
"Even though the lawsuit is between Alaska and myself, the win in the Ninth Circuit is for a nation of people who have also been facing religious discrimination in the workplace."
Brown expressed relief at the decision:
"When I read the decision from the Ninth Circuit, I was overwhelmed with gratefulness. I'm hopeful that with this favorable ruling, no one else will have to go through anything like what I've been through."
The Alaska Airlines case does not exist in isolation. A similar dispute unfolded at United Airlines, where 28-year veteran flight attendant Ruben Sanchez Jr. was fired after an anonymous complaint on X alleged he made anti-trans statements during a private conversation about his Catholic faith with a colleague. The New York Post reported that Sanchez denied making any such statements, saying he had only expressed his church's doctrinal views on gender and marriage. The Association of Flight Attendants union refused to represent Sanchez in arbitration, leaving him without institutional support, a dynamic that mirrors the union's role in the Alaska Airlines case.
David Hacker, vice president of litigation at First Liberty Institute, identified the broader trend plainly: "Employers are increasingly becoming more hostile to people of faith in the workplace, and you're seeing that play out in a lot of different ways."
The pattern is consistent. A company adopts a progressive policy position. An employee expresses a view informed by religious belief that departs from the corporate line. The employee is investigated, disciplined, or fired. The union, which exists to protect workers, sides with management. And the employee is left to fight alone.
The Ninth Circuit's decision does not resolve the case. It sends the matter back so that a jury can evaluate the evidence and determine whether Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants' union engaged in religious discrimination. Several important questions remain unanswered: the specific federal statutes at issue, the remedies Smith and Brown are seeking, whether other employees were investigated or fired for their forum comments, and whether the ruling was unanimous.
But the fact that the Ninth Circuit, not traditionally a court known for siding with religious liberty plaintiffs, found enough evidence to revive this case is itself telling. The internal union communications, the company's selective enforcement of its speech policies, and the speed with which two flight attendants were terminated for expressing mainstream religious views all point in one direction.
Taub framed the ruling in broader terms:
"We are grateful the court recognized the clear evidence of religious discrimination against Marli and Lacey by both Alaska Airlines and the flight attendants' union."
That last phrase deserves emphasis. The union, the institution that exists to defend workers from employer overreach, stands accused alongside the employer. When the institution meant to protect you joins the institution punishing you, the worker has nowhere left to turn except the courts.
Alaska Airlines invited its employees to share their views. Two women did. They spoke from religious conviction, without malice, in a forum the company itself created. The company then labeled their beliefs "hateful" and fired them. A union representative fantasized about stuffing them in a burlap bag.
Now a federal appeals court has told Alaska Airlines that a jury gets to decide whether that was discrimination. The airline had every chance to respond to Fox News Digital's inquiry about the ruling. It chose silence.
Corporate America spent years telling employees that "diversity" and "inclusion" were bedrock values. The Alaska Airlines case is a test of whether those words mean anything, or whether they only apply to the beliefs the boardroom already approves of.
When you fire people for answering a question you asked, the problem isn't their answer. It's yours.
