Victory for free speech

[Always in His Presence]

A former Southwest flight attendant won a $5.1 million verdict against airline and her union after clashes around abortion led to her being fired

A former Southwest flight attendant won a $5.1 million verdict against airline and her union after clashes around abortion led to her being fired

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not a free speech issue. A victory for employee protections against retaliation.

It will be interesting to see how the appeal turns out. I sense the union will continue to lose, but the airline may get out of it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

A victory for employee protections against retaliation.

= Free Speech.......

 

[essentialsaltes]

= Free Speech.......

No, if you insult your boss, you can be fired. This is not about free speech.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, if you insult your boss, you can be fired. This is not about free speech.

The court does not appear to agree with your verdict.......

 

[JosephZ]

The court does not appear to agree with your verdict.......

The court sided with her because it believed Southwest Airlines and the Union discriminated against her religious beliefs. The court dismissed her free speech complaint.

Charlene CARTER, Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA LOCAL 556 and Southwest Airlines Co., Defendants.

Protected Rights under the Constitution

The First and Fifth Amendments protect citizens from conduct by the government and state actors, but not from conduct by private actors. See Tarkanian , 488 U.S. at 191, 109 S.Ct. 454 ; S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. , 483 U.S. at 543, 107 S.Ct. 2971 ; Rendell-Baker , 457 U.S. at 837, 102 S.Ct. 2764 ; Flagg Brothers, Inc. , 436 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729. Unions are not state actors; they are private actors. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7 , 570 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied , 558 U.S. 1049, 130 S.Ct. 749, 175 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009) ; see also Garity v. APWU-AFL-CIO , 585 F. App'x 383, 384 (9th Cir. 2014) ("The district court properly dismissed [plaintiff's] federal constitutional claim because the unions are not state actors acting under color of law."); Ciambriello v. Cty. of Nassau , 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Labor unions ... generally are not state actors[.]"); Earl v. Sheriff's Ass'n , Civ. A. No. H-10-0696, 2010 WL 4955328, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2010) ("Unions are not state actors."). There does not appear to be binding or even persuasive caselaw standing for the proposition that the RLA "transforms" a union into a state actor. See supra , § II.A.3. Therefore, the Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's retaliation claims based on constitutional violations asserted against the Union.

Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556, 353 F. Supp. 3d 556 | Casetext Search + Citator


The jury, sitting in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, found Thursday that Southwest retaliated against Charlene Carter by engaging in activity protected by the Railway Labor Act, unlawfully discriminated against her by firing her and that her termination was motivated by her religious beliefs. The jury also found that Southwest failed to accommodate her religious beliefs.

TWU Local 556 violated the duty of fair representation and retaliated against Carter for engaging in activity protected by the Railway Labor Act, the jury held. The union unlawfully discriminated against Carter by treating her less favorably than other employees and causing her discharge due to her religious beliefs, the jury said. And Local 556 unlawfully failed to accommodate Carter’s religious beliefs, the jury also found.

Carter was fired after the union’s president, Audrey Stone, reported several Facebook messages Carter sent her denouncing the union’s participation in the Women’s March. That came four years after Carter resigned from the union after which she waged a recall campaign and corruption allegations against Stone, according to court documents.

The jury reached its verdict following an eight day trial before Judge Brantley Starr. Starr had ruled May 5 that a trial was necessary on Carter’s religious bias claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, retaliation claims under the Railway Labor Act, and breach of the duty of fair representation claims.

Ex-Southwest Flight Attendant Wins $5.1 Million in Bias Row

 

[essentialsaltes]

The court does not appear to agree with your verdict.......

I'm not offering a verdict in this case. But the plaintiff's statement about freedom of speech should not be confused with the court's judgment.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Not a free speech issue. A victory for employee protections against retaliation

Retaliation for practicing free speech. This was an important case which decided whether or not a company can tell a worker, "Either agree with us or be fired." Disney better pay attention because they are about to get a bunch of lawsuits.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The court sided with her because it believed Southwest Airlines and the Union discriminated against her religious beliefs. The court dismissed her free speech complaint.

Amendment 1
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmmmm......seems they are both included in the same amendment......maybe because the founders believed all these involved free speech?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm not offering a verdict in this case. But the plaintiff's statement about freedom of speech should not be confused with the court's judgment.

Re-read the !st amendment.......and see #9 above......

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, if you insult your boss, you can be fired. This is not about free speech.

This was nothing of the sort. It is no different than if a Disney employee was fired because they are against grooming kids to accept the transgender agenda.

 

[Desk trauma]

Re-read the !st amendment.......and see #9 above......

A careful reading of that amendment would demonstrate that it does not apply to non-governmental organizations such as the one that fired the plaintiff. This is an religious non discrimination law issue.

 

[civilwarbuff]

A careful reading of that amendment would demonstrate that it does not apply to non-governmental organizations such as the one that fired the plaintiff. This is an religious non discrimination law issue.

Then the courts should never get involved in these 'non-governmental organizations' and yet they do. Don't misunderstand me; I pretty much agree with you, the courts should not be involved in employer/employed arguments yet time and again they are. So I have to wonder if all the facts are actually being openly reported? And yes, I don't trust the media.....left or right.....mostly the left though.....

 

[JosephZ]

Amendment 1
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmmmm......seems they are both included in the same amendment......maybe because the founders believed all these involved free speech?

The court decided this wasn't a constitutional case.

“Southwest moves to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claim based on constitutional violations, arguing that the First and Fifth Amendments only operate to protect individuals against government action. SWA Br. 21. Southwest is a publicly-traded company. Id.” Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556, 353 F. Supp. 3d 556, 574 (N.D. Tex. 2019)

Here, Plaintiff is not bringing a claim against the Union based on the charging of improper expenses or related deficiencies. Nor is Plaintiff alleging that Southwest prevented her from resigning from the Union to become a nonmember objector. In fact, Plaintiff resigned from the Union on September 29, 2013, and remained a nonmember objector without incident until her termination by Southwest on March 14, 2017. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Rather, she alleges a claim of retaliation and discrimination against her employer. See id. ¶¶ 104, 128. Plaintiff is essentially asking the Court to hold that Southwest, a private company, is a state actor in the context of an employment dispute because Southwest is a party to a CBA. Plaintiff has failed to identify a recognized legal theory for this proposition. Janus also does not support Plaintiff's argument that the RLA "transforms" Southwest into a private actor. In particular, the ruling in Janus applies to public-sector unions and workers, not private-sector unions and workers. See id. at 2478 ("[W]e conclude that public-sector agency-shop arrangements violate the First Amendment[.]" (emphasis added) ). And as discussed above, Plaintiff is a nonmember objector of a private-sector union.

Southwest is not a state actor. Nonmember objectors in the private sector do have a First Amendment right to object to their union and pay reduced dues, which Plaintiff has elected to do. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus will be extended to private-sector unions; however, this is not the issue before the Court in the instant case. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for retaliation by her employer and religious discrimination under Title VII. While she may object to paying her union dues, that is not the claim Plaintiff has brought before the Court in the instant case. Therefore, the Court grants Southwest's Motion to Dismiss on this ground and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Southwest based on the exercise of her rights under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556, 353 F. Supp. 3d 556 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[Desk trauma]

Then the courts should never get involved in these 'non-governmental organizations' and yet they do. .

Religion is included as a protected class in state and federal anti discrimination laws hence the courts involvement.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law ...

Hmmmmm......seems they are both included in the same amendment......maybe because the founders believed all these involved free speech?

Hmmmm....... seems Southwest Airlines and the union are not Congress (or any arm of federal or state government).


This insistence (from some on the right) that Twitter or Disney or Southwest are part of the government is so clearly wrong that only 2 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices would go for it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hmmmm....... seems Southwest Airlines and the union are not Congress (or any arm of federal or state government).


This insistence (from some on the right) that Twitter or Disney or Southwest are part of the government is so clearly wrong that only 2 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices would go for it.

Hmmmmmm......and yet the government has insisted that the right to join a union (clearly a non-governmental agency (or so they claim)) is protected and scotus agrees. Rulings for convenience of the government perhaps?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hmmmmmm......and yet the government has insisted that the right to join a union (clearly a non-governmental agency (or so they claim)) is protected and scotus agrees. Rulings for convenience of the government perhaps?

Hmpf. Non sequitur.

People have all sorts of rights that are not in the First Amendment. Although we have one fewer than we used to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Re-read the !st amendment.......and see #9 above......

Since when does free speech principle apply to non-governmental entities?

The 1st amendment says that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

And later parts of the constitution extend that to include "state actors".

A company firing someone for saying something they didn't like would have nothing to do with that

The first amendment simply means that the government can't punish her or charge her with anything or criminalize her calling her union president "despicable" or sending her facebook messages...but it doesn't mean that any and all forms of speech and expression are "consequence-free" in the private sector.

If I own a piece of property or a company, I can set whatever rules I want provided they don't violate the criminal code.

I guarantee you right now that if I send an email to my CEO calling him despicable, and start sending him unwanted FB messages, I won't have a job for very long.

If I came to your house for a BBQ, and started using language you didn't approve of and you made me leave, would I get to sue you for "violating my free speech"?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Nice to see that the courts are allowing employees to freely share their beliefs even if it contradicts their boss.
Freedom to speak your beliefs without reprisal is what it is all about