FOLLOW US

Just one month after the United States District Judge Brantley Starr ordered a reinstatement from Southwest Airlines Co. to Charlene Carter, a former employee, Southwest has asked the court for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. The case involves an employee who claims that she was fired because of her anti-abortion views. After the reinstatement, Southwest has argued that the court did not give proper instructions to the jury and that "a religious accommodation would have impose an undue hardship." Charlene Carter was fired back in 2017, just after she allegedly sent messages to the president of the union, Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, and voiced her opposition oof the funds being collected for members of the union to attend the Women's March in Washington DD.C., with Planned Parenthood as one of the sponsors. Carter's messages continued, calling abortion "murder", and calling the union president names. Carter didn't stop there, as she sent videos of aborted fetuses to the president, who later filed a complaint. The motion for a new trial was entered on Monday by Southwest. They continue to argue that providing religious accommodations for Carter would burden the airline, which they claim their new evidence shows. "The jury found that Southwest failed to provide Carter a reasonable religious accommodation, and that providing her an accommodation would not impose an undue hardship," Southwest stated. "These conclusions are unsupported by the evidence and predicated on faulty instructions. Even if Carter had sufficient evidence to state a prima facie for an accommodation-based religious discrimination claim, the court should enter judgment for Southwest because the record demonstrates that accommodating Carter would have imposed an undue hardship," said Southwest. The airline also makes an argument that Carter was overcompensated with the reinstatement she received. They claim that the evidence provided does not justify the $300,000 Carter received in both punitive and compensatory damages. Southwest claims, "There is no record evidence that at [the] time of Carter's termination, Southwest managers believed their actions violated Title VII. To the contrary they understood themselves to be (among other things) applying policies designed to thwart violations of Title VII."   The case is Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al., case number 3:17-cv-02278, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.