Alaska Airlines

Many Americans have concerns over the potential impact of the so-called “Equality Act,” a bill considered by Congress that would seriously threaten the religious liberty rights of any citizen who dissents from the government’s sexual orthodoxy.  So divisive is the legislation that it languished for months in the U.S. Senate without the votes to pass.

And many more Americans have concerns about workplace corporate cancel culture that silences or fires employees who hold traditional religious beliefs on moral issues.

In early 2021, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act on a company forum, inviting employees to comment and ask questions. Flight attendant Lacey Smith posted a question, asking, “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”

In the same forum another flight attendant, Marli Brown, asked, “Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women rights and parental rights?” Her post continued to explain her religious concerns about the dangers to women’s safe spaces posed by the Equality Act.

Both clients were subsequently investigated, questioned by airline authorities, and fired from their jobs.

In its notice of discharge to Lacey, Alaska Airlines claimed, “Defining gender identity or sexual orientation as a moral issue” is “a discriminatory statement.”  Marli’s notice of discharge stated that her posting was “hateful,” “offensive,” and “discriminatory.”

Both our clients are firmly committed to equality and diversity, always seeking to treat others with kindness and respect. They each simply sought clarification of the airlines’ position on a particular piece of legislation, yet after posting concerns shared by millions of Americans – including many in Congress – they were fired.

In its complaints to the EEOC, First Liberty attorneys state that by firing both flight attendants, “Alaska Airlines discriminated against them on the basis of religion, perpetuated a hostile work environment, failed to grant them a religious accommodation allowing them to express their opinions on the same basis as other protected classes, and retaliated against [them].”

In May 2022, First Liberty Institute filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Marli and Lacey.  Then, In January 2024, First Liberty Institute and the Ard Law Group filed a motion for summary judgment.

Court documents revealed the extent of the union’s involvement. Union MEC President reported the flight attendants’ comments to Alaska Airlines leadership. In a company chat among union representatives, one stated, “Can we PLEASE get someone to shut down comments, or put Marli and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well.” Union representatives repeatedly disparaged the flight attendants, calling them “bigots” and “pukes.” Referring to Lacey, the Union President said, “I hate her.”

In addition, Alaska Airlines’ decision to fire Marli and Lacey was in sharp contrast with how it treated allegations of anti-Christian discrimination or harassment. When a flight attendant was accused of anti-Christian “hate speech” and making a “threat of violence” (“Any Christian that thinks like this should have their teeth kicked in!”) on his social media using the Alaska Airlines logo for his social media cover photos, he was given the lowest level of discipline.

Alaska Airlines VP of Inflight testified that an employee’s use of the term “opposite sex” violates the Airlines’ discrimination policy because that implies that there are only two sexes.

In May 2024, a federal Judge in Seattle granted summary judgment against Lacey and Marli, preventing them from presenting their case to a jury. But in October 2024, First Liberty appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Defending Marli and Lacey at the Ninth Circuit, First Liberty presented oral argument in August 2025, asking the appellate court to overturn the district court’s decision which prevented Ms. Smith and Ms. Brown from trying their case before a jury.

We are now awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit.