U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered three Southwest Airlines lawyers to take 8 hours of "instruction" from Alliance Defending Freedom as part of a contempt finding in an employment case.
This case was all about a truly rabid anti-abortion woman who objected to SW Airlines Union folks paying for some officials to go to the Women's March in DC because the March was sponsored in part (not in full) by Planned Parenthood, and she then flooded the Union president with pictures of aborted fetuses and made many disparaging remarks on a Facebook page accessible to SW employees. She was ultimately fired for the harassments and violating policies about political content in posts where she can be seen as representing the company (and refusing to pay union dues, which under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) governing the airlines as well, she couldn't get out of). A jury awarded her over 5 mill on a retaliation claim.
Then she asked for sanctions because of the wording a communication the airline then sent out to its employees. I don't know about the "may" part--the National Right To Work Legal Defense folk's description just says that they asked for sanctions because the message said "does not discriminate" and the jury had found discrimination. Note that the discrimination happened in 2017 and the communication was in December of 22 and is in the present tense. Can't this be interpreted as "SW has learned its lesson?"
ADF may not have been directly involved in this suit, but its greasy fingerprints are all over the logic of the case.
I guess one might take comfort in the fact that the attorneys being sanctioned were all at one point 8th graders and I'm sure have memories of how one handles oneself in a class taught by someone they consider an asshole.
Please also see my comment on Chris's reply regarding the nature of the statement issued by SW.
The really infuriating thing is that swa did deserve the sanctions imo based on the too clever by half wording in that notice. And yet the Judge can’t help himself and gives away the game; it’s not about the discrimination and the law, It’s about defeating your ideological enemies.
8 hours of religious training from these jokers? Great I'm buying a copy of the Koran and reading aloud from it all day. They better not stifle any freedoms of religion...
Did his Uncle Ken help him get his appointment? Requiring a day of religious training from the wing nut evangelicals doesn’t embody the spirit of religious freedom in the least.
Sorry, all, about “Ruthie” comment-bombing on the Lord’s day. I responded to the first one that came in, but I’m not going to go through and respond to all of them. Suffice it to say, she’s wrong. I never wrote “religious training” in the whole article. I wrote “religious-liberty training,” because I was that is what the judge wrote. Also, the judge never once called it “First Amendment training.”
On the other hand, getting first-hand instruction on what attorneys will be up against in future cases could be very illuminating. I wonder how the ADF will enjoy having their opponents forced into their sanctum? They might not appreciate that.
Those lawyers should go ahead and show up for those eight hours of religious FREEDOM classes from ADF. And hold them to it that they are FREEDOM classes and not Chisto-fascist classes. Ask questions of the trainers that are hostile and uncomfortable. Make them acknowledge and admit that Christianity is just one faith and deserves no more protection than any other faith. Make them acknowledge and admit that no faith at all is part of religious FREEDOM. And if ADF tries a hegemonic approach, blast them for it. Record it. Then appeal it. Say you went into in good faith and what they did was the opposite of valid DEI training. Responded to properly this could backfire spectacularly on the Judge and ADF.
Somebody should file a FOIA request for all communications between the Court and ADF and see what happens. Probably won't be successful, but. Or the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena that information as part of its "oversight." F-cking Senate Democrats never do anything.
Not directly relevant to this case, but I wanted to add that an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom (Christopher Schandevel) represented the state of Iowa in the most recent abortion case argued before the Iowa Supreme Court. This was the litigation where our governor was trying to lift the permanent injunction on a near-total ban enacted in 2018. The Iowa Supreme Court split 3-3, which left the lower court ruling in place and the law permanently enjoined.
I thought it was odd for the ADF attorney to be representing the state, because our new Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird made a big deal in January about bringing this abortion litigation back in house. (Our previous Democratic AG had refused to defend the near-total abortion ban.) I suspect the ADF attorney argued the case because Brenna Bird hired a very inexperienced Federalist Society type as Iowa's solicitor general.
So is their plan to eliminate abortion, outlaw being part of the LGBTQIA+ community, then litigate us to religious training from these miserable sobs? Naw, I’m good. I liberated myself from my Adventist brainwashing that I received growing up and would rather not drink the kool aid again.
I do have to say I don’t believe in the afterlife life but if it DID exist and this if heaven and I’m spending with them for eternity then I volunteer to drive the bus load to hell. Because unless I’m sent to heaven is steel toe boots and appointments with these miserable sobs then I don’t want it.
Is a "direct award" to a specific entity legal? When assigned "traffic school"or "anger management" for example, lists of acceptable vendor options are usually provided to chose from. I would hope they appeal this directive.
This case was all about a truly rabid anti-abortion woman who objected to SW Airlines Union folks paying for some officials to go to the Women's March in DC because the March was sponsored in part (not in full) by Planned Parenthood, and she then flooded the Union president with pictures of aborted fetuses and made many disparaging remarks on a Facebook page accessible to SW employees. She was ultimately fired for the harassments and violating policies about political content in posts where she can be seen as representing the company (and refusing to pay union dues, which under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) governing the airlines as well, she couldn't get out of). A jury awarded her over 5 mill on a retaliation claim.
Then she asked for sanctions because of the wording a communication the airline then sent out to its employees. I don't know about the "may" part--the National Right To Work Legal Defense folk's description just says that they asked for sanctions because the message said "does not discriminate" and the jury had found discrimination. Note that the discrimination happened in 2017 and the communication was in December of 22 and is in the present tense. Can't this be interpreted as "SW has learned its lesson?"
ADF may not have been directly involved in this suit, but its greasy fingerprints are all over the logic of the case.
I guess one might take comfort in the fact that the attorneys being sanctioned were all at one point 8th graders and I'm sure have memories of how one handles oneself in a class taught by someone they consider an asshole.
Please also see my comment on Chris's reply regarding the nature of the statement issued by SW.
So a judge ordered United States citizens to receive religious instruction? Because that’s the bottom line here.😾
The really infuriating thing is that swa did deserve the sanctions imo based on the too clever by half wording in that notice. And yet the Judge can’t help himself and gives away the game; it’s not about the discrimination and the law, It’s about defeating your ideological enemies.
Apparently, the only "freedom" that the ADF really favours is the freedom for Christian theocrats to impose their views on everyone else.
8 hours of religious training from these jokers? Great I'm buying a copy of the Koran and reading aloud from it all day. They better not stifle any freedoms of religion...
Yet another judge who doesn’t belong on the bench. Justice in Texas is the Christo-fascist way or the Highway.
Straight out of the Cultural Revolution playbook--political re-education.
Did his Uncle Ken help him get his appointment? Requiring a day of religious training from the wing nut evangelicals doesn’t embody the spirit of religious freedom in the least.
Sorry, all, about “Ruthie” comment-bombing on the Lord’s day. I responded to the first one that came in, but I’m not going to go through and respond to all of them. Suffice it to say, she’s wrong. I never wrote “religious training” in the whole article. I wrote “religious-liberty training,” because I was that is what the judge wrote. Also, the judge never once called it “First Amendment training.”
On the other hand, getting first-hand instruction on what attorneys will be up against in future cases could be very illuminating. I wonder how the ADF will enjoy having their opponents forced into their sanctum? They might not appreciate that.
Those lawyers should go ahead and show up for those eight hours of religious FREEDOM classes from ADF. And hold them to it that they are FREEDOM classes and not Chisto-fascist classes. Ask questions of the trainers that are hostile and uncomfortable. Make them acknowledge and admit that Christianity is just one faith and deserves no more protection than any other faith. Make them acknowledge and admit that no faith at all is part of religious FREEDOM. And if ADF tries a hegemonic approach, blast them for it. Record it. Then appeal it. Say you went into in good faith and what they did was the opposite of valid DEI training. Responded to properly this could backfire spectacularly on the Judge and ADF.
Somebody should file a FOIA request for all communications between the Court and ADF and see what happens. Probably won't be successful, but. Or the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena that information as part of its "oversight." F-cking Senate Democrats never do anything.
Not directly relevant to this case, but I wanted to add that an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom (Christopher Schandevel) represented the state of Iowa in the most recent abortion case argued before the Iowa Supreme Court. This was the litigation where our governor was trying to lift the permanent injunction on a near-total ban enacted in 2018. The Iowa Supreme Court split 3-3, which left the lower court ruling in place and the law permanently enjoined.
I thought it was odd for the ADF attorney to be representing the state, because our new Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird made a big deal in January about bringing this abortion litigation back in house. (Our previous Democratic AG had refused to defend the near-total abortion ban.) I suspect the ADF attorney argued the case because Brenna Bird hired a very inexperienced Federalist Society type as Iowa's solicitor general.
So is their plan to eliminate abortion, outlaw being part of the LGBTQIA+ community, then litigate us to religious training from these miserable sobs? Naw, I’m good. I liberated myself from my Adventist brainwashing that I received growing up and would rather not drink the kool aid again.
I do have to say I don’t believe in the afterlife life but if it DID exist and this if heaven and I’m spending with them for eternity then I volunteer to drive the bus load to hell. Because unless I’m sent to heaven is steel toe boots and appointments with these miserable sobs then I don’t want it.
Is a "direct award" to a specific entity legal? When assigned "traffic school"or "anger management" for example, lists of acceptable vendor options are usually provided to chose from. I would hope they appeal this directive.
This is part and parcel of an authoritarian takeover of the US government, I'm afraid.