(TEXAS) Fifth Circuit Clarifies Religious Discrimination Law 

Carter v. Southwest Airlines | May 8, 2025

On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark decision in Carter v. Southwest Airlines. The ruling clarifies an important distinction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: the difference between religious belief-based claims and religious practice-based claims.

This decision is especially significant here in Texas, where the Fifth Circuit governs, and where employers, unions, and employees alike must navigate the evolving standards for religious discrimination and accommodation.

Belief-Based vs. Practice-Based Claims

Belief-Based

A belief-based claim alleges discrimination because of what an employee believes. There is no “undue hardship” defense to such claims. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the employer acted against them because of their religious beliefs alone.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the jury’s verdict on Carter’s belief-based Title VII claim, finding insufficient evidence that Southwest acted solely because of her pro-life beliefs.

Practice-Based

Practice-based claims, by contrast, focus on religious observances or conduct (what an employee does). Employers must provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

Here, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict on Carter’s practice-based Title VII claims. Importantly, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy (2023) raised the undue-hardship bar to “substantial increased costs,” the Fifth Circuit left the verdict intact, reasoning that Southwest had already failed to show hardship under the less demanding standard.

Union Liability

The court also held that unions face separate exposure under Title VII. Unlike employers, unions may be liable if they cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate. The verdict against the union stood, underscoring that union officers’ actions can trigger liability if they press employers to take adverse action on religious grounds.

Remedies Vacated

The Fifth Circuit also vacated:

• A sweeping permanent injunction that was overly broad; and
  
• A contempt order requiring “religious-liberty training” for Southwest’s attorneys, finding that it exceeded proper remedial bounds.
  

This aspect of the ruling sends a clear message: remedies must remain narrowly tailored to the violations proven.

Why This Decision Matters for Texas Employers and Employees

• Different categories, different rules. Belief-based claims hinge on motive; practice-based claims invoke the accommodation/undue hardship framework.
  
• Undue hardship is harder to prove post-Groff. Employers must show concrete, substantial costs—not mere inconvenience or morale concerns.
  
• Unions must tread carefully. Advocacy that even attempts to induce employer discrimination can be enough to create liability.
  
• Remedies must be precise. Overly broad injunctions or punitive orders risk reversal.
  

Takeaway for Texas Workplaces

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Carter provides a roadmap for navigating religious discrimination cases. For employers, careful documentation of accommodation efforts is key. For employees, separating belief-based from practice-based claims can sharpen litigation strategy. And for unions, training and oversight are critical to avoid “causing or attempting to cause” discriminatory action.

The Mundaca Law Firm, LLC—with offices in Dallas, Washington, D.C., and Annapolis—represents clients across Texas and beyond in employment law, business law, and crisis management.

📍 Our Dallas Office is located in Preston Hollow.

We are proud to serve Texas employers and employees navigating the Fifth Circuit’s evolving landscape.

Advocacy without compromises.