A federal judge has ruled that a former flight attendant can move forward with her Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against United Airlines. The lawsuit stems from former flight attendant Jintana Hampton’s unlawful firing after voicing her religious objections to the COVID-19 shot and the company’s failure under federal law to engage in a good-faith, interactive process with employees who raised religious objections. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek determined Hampton made “plausible” legal claims, and denied United’s dismissal motion whereby advancing the case to the discovery phase.

In Hampton v. United Airlines, Liberty Counsel represents Hampton, a dedicated 28-year employee of United Airlines who objected to the use of aborted fetal cell lines associated with the COVID shots. Liberty Counsel is seeking a judgment that declares the airline’s religiously discriminatory actions against Hampton violated Title VII and Florida law. The lawsuit also requests Hampton’s reinstatement, or alternatively, front pay that would cover any future wages and benefits she would have likely lost because of the unlawful firing. In addition, the lawsuit requests back pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Hampton was fired in February 2022 after the airline unlawfully refused to take part in the Title VII religious accommodation process regarding its COVID-19 shot mandate. In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Hampton states United Airlines not only failed to try to accommodate her religious beliefs as required by Title VII, but also expressed hostility toward those beliefs, and that her firing was retaliation (prohibited by Title VII) for voicing her religious objections.

While United claims her firing was over her missing a company-wide, administrative deadline for religious-exemption requests, that deadline was later blocked by a federal injunction in a separate case. As the lawsuit notes, Hampton’s exemption request was actually timely as she was under and met a separate deadline for employees on medical leave at the time of the mandate.

Liberty Counsel argues that when employees submit a religious accommodation request, employers are obligated by law to evaluate it and must engage in the interactive Title VII accommodation process regardless of deadlines.

“To the extent Hampton voiced concern that United was misapplying its deadline to shut down religious accommodation requests, she was doing more than just asking for an exemption—she was calling out discrimination,” wrote Judge Dudek. “Pushing back against an employer’s practice because it unfairly penalizes religious observers, which is what Hampton seems to be claiming here, is protected opposition under Title VII.”

As the lawsuit notes, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby expressed public statements and “apparent disdain” for religious exemptions. At a company town hall Kirby declared that “very few” religious exemptions would be granted and warned “any employee [who] all the sudden decided [they're] really religious” would be “putting [their] job on the line.” 

Judge Dudek wrote that those public remarks by United’s CEO was a “kind of top-down animus directed squarely at religious objectors” and reflects possible “intentional discrimination at this stage.” 

Hampton v. United Airlines is the third individual lawsuit against the airline by Liberty Counsel involving unlawful religious discrimination. The other two lawsuits are Gates v. United Airlines and DeBusk v. United Airlines, which allege the airline similarly violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate religious exemptions that did not present undue hardships on the company. 

Liberty Counsel’s three lawsuits are separate cases from the nationwide class action suit Sambrano v. United Airlines. In June 2024, a federal judge in Texas granted class action status to more than 2,200 United employees who had received some form of religious accommodation and who were put on indefinite, unpaid leave for choosing not to get the shot. Sambrano is one of the largest class action cases ever filed against a private employer. However, Hampton’s Title VII case falls outside the scope of this class action suit because United Airlines refused to even consider her religious accommodation whereby failing to engage in the required interactive process under Title VII.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “United Airlines violated a fundamental principle of employment law to engage in an interactive process to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. Under Title VII, employers have a duty to engage with employees and work in good faith when they know a workplace requirement conflicts with an employee’s religious practice. Instead of engaging in the interactive process required by Title VII, United imposed an arbitrary deadline, ignored its own leave policy, and terminated a 28-year flight attendant for refusing to violate her conscience over an experimental injection. Employers cannot force employees to choose between their faith and their livelihood.”