Start with today’s decision Carter v. Southwest Airlines (Combined into Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers of America.), decided today by Judges Edith Brown Clement, Kurt Engelhardt and Cory Wilson (relevant to my previous post on this Case post, see here):
On August 7, 2023, the district court held Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for failing to comply with a Title VII ruling and ordered company attorneys to participate in “religious freedom training” as a sanction… [W]e Grant Southwest’s motion to stay the appeal because the order may exceed the district court’s civil contempt authority….
A jury found that Southwest Airlines violated Title VII and the Railroad Labor Act by firing flight attendant Charlene Carter because of her religious beliefs; specifically, by publicly posting and promoting her religious beliefs. Privately sending photos of aborted fetuses to another Southwest Airlines flight attendant. As part of the judgment, the district court ordered Southwest to post the judgment and judgment on a company bulletin board and email it to all flight attendants informing them of their Title VII and RLA rights (the “Notice Requirement”). ).
{The district court also prohibited Southwest from “discriminating against Southwest flight attendants based on religious practices and beliefs, including but not limited to content expressed on social media and content regarding abortion,” and “failure to reasonably accommodate Southwest flight attendants’ good faith Wishes” hold religious beliefs, customs and rituals. “}
To comply with the ruling, Southwest reinstated Carter, posted the ruling and verdict in all flight attendant lounges and emailed the ruling and verdict to all flight attendants. The email states that “a federal court in Dallas has ruled against Southwest Airlines” and “orders us to notify you that Southwest does not discriminate against employees based on their religious practices and beliefs.” Southwest also issued a The internal memo stated that Southwest considered Carter’s messages “inappropriate, harassing and offensive,” “extremely explicit” and “violated several company policies.” The memo further states that while Southwest will enforce the ruling, Southwest is “extremely disappointed with the court’s ruling and [was] Appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Carter asked the district court to find Southwest in contempt of court, arguing that the communications (emails and memos) violated the ruling. Carter argued that the email violated the ruling because it said Southwest “does not discriminate,” rather than “shall not discriminate,” which is language required by the court order. As for the memo, Carter claimed it showed Southwest could continue to discriminate against flight attendants based on their religious beliefs and practices. The district court agreed that Southwest violated the notification requirements and therefore held Southwest in contempt of court. As a contempt of court sanction, the district court directed Southwest to circulate a verbatim statement to its flight attendants “to set the record straight” and ordered three of Southwest’s in-house attorneys to attend Alliance Defending Freedom’s religious freedom training {“a provision of litigation services , funding and training to protect First Amendment freedoms and other fundamental rights”}.
[T]The contempt order is likely to exceed the district court’s civil contempt powers…. The court’s civil contempt power “is not a broad repertoire of power held by the empire” – rather, it is “a limited source; an implicit power squeezed out from the needs of the court’s functioning”. Civil contempt sanctions are “remedial” and “designed to compel future compliance with court orders”[ing] “Defendant complies with court order” or “compensation”[ing] In contrast, criminal contempt sanctions are used “to punish conduct in contempt of court and to deter similar conduct.” Generally speaking, “criminal contempt of court conduct” [contempt] No penalty shall be imposed upon a person who is not afforded the constitutionally required protection from such criminal proceedings.
Southwest argued that the district court abused its civil contempt authority by requiring Southwest’s in-house attorneys to participate in “religious freedom training, which neither ensures compliance with the order nor compensates Carter for any failure to comply.” According to Southwest Airlines, “the only sanctions allowed [after a civil-contempt finding] We request a new ‘no discrimination’ email and an award of attorney’s fees related to Carter’s contempt of court conviction because these are the least restrictive ways to ensure compliance with the judgment and compensate Carter.
We agree with Southwest that “religious freedom training” would not compel Carter to comply and would not compensate Carter. start, “[c]Wrongful contempt of court differs from criminal contempt in that the latter merely seeks to intimidate[e] The defendant acted in accordance with a previous order of the court [it] Because the court has not previously ordered Southwest’s attorneys to participate in religious freedom training, we doubt it can do so in a civil contempt case.
Furthermore, “the beneficiaries of acts of civil disdain are individual litigantBut here, Carter gained no clear benefit from the training requirement. It’s not just hostility toward Carter or her beliefs. Chapter VII Rather include training all Religious freedom training, which may include topics unrelated to ensuring compliance with Title VII judgments, such as the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Therefore, mandatory training is obviously not the most lenient means for Southwest Airlines to remedy violations.
Carter argued that the court regularly requires legal training in “relevant subject areas” to support her assertion that “Title 7 training” ensures Southwest complies with the order. This is true, but this mandatory training is at least to some extent a punitive remedy So not a civil contempt sanction…
Ultimately, the district court appeared to be seeking to punish, at least in part, Southwest for what it believed was a violation of Title VII and conduct that was in contempt. But its punitive sanctions may go beyond the court’s civil contempt powers…
Southwest Airlines could be irreparably harmed [absent a stay] “In the form of a criminal [punishment] Imposed without necessary due process protections. [punishment] This makes the damage it causes [Southwest] It cannot be undone.
Thus, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the sanctions should be stayed pending appeal, and although the logic of the analysis suggested that sanctions likely would not be reinstated (at least unless remanded upon appeal), the district court concluded that counsel’s conduct constituted contempt of court , and conduct a contempt hearing with all required procedural protections).
Thanks to Howard Bashman for the tip.
