Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Judge orders religious-liberty training for Southwest lawyers

- David Koenig

A federal judge has set off a debate among legal scholars by ordering lawyers for Southwest Airlines to undergo “religious-liberty training” by a conservati­ve Christian legal group.

Critics say that if the judge believes such training is necessary, he should have found a less polarizing group to conduct it.

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr made the decision after ruling that Southwest was in contempt of court for defying a previous order he issued in a case involving a flight attendant who said she was fired for expressing her opposition to abortion. She sued Southwest and won.

Starr, nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump, said Southwest didn’t understand federal protection­s for religious freedom. So this week, he ordered three of the airline’s lawyers to undergo religious-liberty training. And he said that the Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, “is particular­ly well-suited” to do the training.

The group has gained attention – and high-profile court victories – opposing abortion, defending a baker and a website designer who didn’t want to work on same-sex marriages, and seeking to limit transgende­r rights. It frequently cites First Amendment rights in its litigation.

ADF declined to describe its training or to make a representa­tive available for an interview. In an emailed statement, its chief legal counsel, Jim Campbell, said, “The judge’s order calls for ADF to provide training in religious liberty law – not religious doctrine. It is baseless to suggest that people of faith cannot provide legal instructio­n if their beliefs differ from their audience’s.”

Southwest has appealed Starr’s sanctions, which also include emailing a statement that the judge wrote to its flight attendants to say that airline is not permitted to discrimina­te based on employee’s religious beliefs. The airline, which is based in Dallas, is already appealing the jury verdict in the flight attendant’s favor.

David Lopez, who was general counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunit­y

Commission during the Obama administra­tion, said Southwest could argue that training by a conservati­ve Christian group violates the religious rights of its lawyers, especially if any follow other faiths or none at all.

Lopez said the EEOC often insisted on training for employers found to have discrimina­ted, but that the agency and the company would agree on who would conduct that training.

“What happened here, I’ve never seen that,” said Lopez, who is now a law professor at Rutgers University.

ADF is “just one voice” on the subject of religious freedom, Lopez said, “and they are a voice that many people view as being very controvers­ial and very narrow.”

Douglas Laycock, an authority on religious-liberty law who recently retired as a law professor at the University of Virginia, said judges can order extra measures such as training to make sure defendants comply with the rest of an order, but Southwest still has avenues to appeal.

Southwest could argue “that ADF has extreme views on these issues and will give distorted training, and there is something to that,” Laycock said. Or, he said, the airline could argue that ADF is essentiall­y a religious organizati­on, and that requiring Southwest lawyers to take training from the group would violate their rights.

“ADF presents itself as a religiousl­iberty organizati­on, but it is really a Christian organizati­on,” Laycock said. “It isn’t much interested in anyone else’s religious liberty.”

Steven Collis, director of a law and religion clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, said it is within a judge’s authority to order this kind of training.

“I do think it’s questionab­le ordering that training to be done by a group that is clearly partisan on issues related to religious freedom,” Collis added. “He could have avoided criticism by ordering this from someone who is a little more neutral … use an academic instead.”

Judge Starr was nominated by Trump in 2019 and confirmed by the Senate, then under Republican control, in a party-line, 51-39 vote.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States