Southwest Airlines violated flight attendant Charlene Carter’s right to religious expression, but the Dallas-based airline did not break federal laws banning religious discrimination in the workplace, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday.
A three-judge appellate court panel also struck down U.S. District Court Judge Brantley Starr’s order requiring three of the airline’s attorneys to attend religious liberty training with a Christian legal group.
But the Fifth Circuit did not completely overturn a North Texas federal jury’s verdict in favor of the Christian flight attendant who was fired after sending graphic antiabortion messages to her union president.
Southwest fired Carter in March 2017 after she sent messages opposing abortion to her union president that contained images of an aborted fetus and of women wearing costumes that depicted female genitalia. Carter called the union president “Despicable in so many ways” for participating in the Women’s March in Washington, D.C.
Carter had also lent support to a union recall effort against then-president Audrey Stone, which she seemingly referenced in one of the messages.
“[B]y the way the RECALL is going to Happen and you are limited in the days you will be living off of all the [Southwest flight attendants].. Cant wait to see you back on the line,” Carter wrote.
A jury sided with Carter in 2022 and said she should be awarded $5.3 million from the airline and union.
Judge Starr, who presided over the trial, ordered that Carter be reinstated to her former job. In 2023, Starr granted Carter’s motion for sanctions against Southwest, finding the legal team failed to comply with the court’s order to notify flight attendants that the law forbids employment discrimination on the basis of religion.
The airline’s internal memo said the company “does not discriminate” rather than saying it “may not discriminate.” The memo also expressed disappointment with the judgment and mentioned plans to appeal.
Judge Starr ordered three Southwest lawyers to undergo religious liberty training from The Alliance Defending Freedom. The appeals court put that order on hold last year.
While the appellate court upheld the finding of noncompliance with the order, the judges ultimately struck down the training requirement, calling it punitive and unrelated to ensuring future compliance.
“In this civil case, the sanction plainly exceeded remedial bounds and sought to punish Southwest’s attorneys through a directive that did little to coerce the airline’s compliance with the district court’s judgment,” Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote in a 63-page opinion. Appellate judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Cory T. Wilson joined Judge Clement’s opinion. Judge Clement was nominated for the court by President George W. Bush, while judges Engelhardt and Wilson were nominees of President Donald Trump.
Neither lawyers for Carter or Southwest Airlines responded to requests for comment.
The judges rejected Transport Workers Union of America’s challenge to the jury’s finding of retaliation and breach of duty to fairly represent Carter.
The appellate court concluded that Carter failed to present sufficient legal evidence that her religious beliefs, rather than her practices, were the motivating factor for her termination.
The court found no direct evidence that Southwest targeted Carter for her Christian, pro-life beliefs, the judges wrote.
“To the contrary,” the opinion stated, “the evidence showed many Southwest employees likewise held pro-life, Christian beliefs,” including a key labor manager involved in investigating Carter.
Instead, Carter’s conduct — sending graphic antiabortion videos and making controversial social media posts — was cited as the true basis for the termination.
Carter had argued that the jury should decide whether her termination stemmed from bias against her beliefs or from actions stemming from those beliefs. But the judges warned that blurring this line would undermine legal standards and allow plaintiffs to bypass established employer defenses simply by alleging hidden religious animus.
As a result, the court reversed the district court’s denial of Southwest’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and ordered the lower court to enter judgment in favor of the airline on the belief-based intentional-discrimination claim.
But the court did not fully clear Southwest of legal jeopardy. The judges noted that the trial on Carter’s practice-based claims may have been tainted by misstated jury instructions regarding the legal threshold for what constitutes an “undue hardship” on an employer.
At the time of trial, precedent allowed employers to refuse religious accommodations if they caused more than a de minimis cost. But a posttrial Supreme Court decision clarified that employers must meet a higher bar to claim undue hardship.
Southwest maintained that accommodating Carter’s actions would have caused substantial harm to employee morale and the company’s mission. Testimony revealed that some employees felt physically ill and distressed by the videos.
Carter is represented by Matthew B. Gilliam of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Bobby G. Pryor and Matthew D. Hill of Pryor & Bruce in Rockwall.
Southwest is represented by Shay Dvoretzky and Parker Rider-Longmaid of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paulo B. McKeeby and Brian K. Morris of Reed Smith.
The cases are Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, 5th Cir., No. 23-10008, 5/8/25, Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co., 5th Cir., No. 23-10536, 5/8/25, and Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co., 5th Cir., No. 23-10836, 5/8/25.