DENVER (CN) — A Christian support group asked the 10th Circuit on Thursday to revive religious discrimination claims against an employer that opted to stop recognizing the group when its faith requirements for leaders butted up against a new anti-discrimination policy.
“There was such animosity to Christians at this organization that one of the leaders of the group was told he was ‘disgusting’ when he said he was Christian,” argued attorney Michael Considine on behalf of the Christians in the Workplace Networking Group formed by employees of National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia in Albuquerque.
Sandia operates a national security laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy in Albuquerque and allows employees to form resource groups based on shared identity or beliefs. When Sandia adopted an anti-discrimination policy in 2020, however, the company asked the Christians in the Workplace Networking Group to remove certain faith-based requirements for its leadership.
When the group refused to amend rules, Sandia removed it from its website and withdrew support, though the company claimed members were still able to meet and practice their faith.
The group sued on April 8, 2022, claiming it was unfairly denied a religious accommodation. Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge David Urias denied the group’s request to file a second amended complaint with a new claim. Urias then granted summary judgment to Sandia on March 28, 2024, after finding the group member’s actual employment hadn’t been adversely impacted.
Christians in the Workplace appealed, posing a few novel oral argument strategies, including waiving all of the group’s deprivation of rights claims made in the appeal brief by arguing the company was in fact a government agency.
“If it was a federal agency, all of your 1983 claims would go out the window because you can’t bring your 1983 claims against a federal agency,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes. “So are you waving your 1983 claims as a matter of law?”
Considine affirmed.
“Yes, I already said that,” Considine said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Veronica Rossman then asked Considine to point to the living documents she should review.
“I’m looking for the operative motion that was not stricken or denied as moot,” the Joe Biden appointee said.
Considine said he was referring to facts from a motion stricken as moot because they remained relevant to his argument. Considine wanted to argue his case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a claim he had attempted to bring in on a second amended complaint in the lower court but was denied since the claim was based on the case’s original facts and could have been brought earlier.
Considine argued the new claim was permissible since Sandia introduced an expert witness who claimed one could be a Christian and still oppose the organization’s faith statement.
“What is novel about saying you can have different views and be a Christian?” asked Holmes, an appointee of George W. Bush.
Considine said the viewpoint was so surprising, it amounted to a new fact in the case.
Holmes questioned whether a new opinion necessarily amounted to a new fact.
“The fact that an expert has an opinion on whether it would be a burden, how does that alter the nucleus of facts that would have changed your ability to bring a claim?” Holmes asked.
Considine doubled down.
“That’s a new fact,” Considine said. “They state that a Christian could ascribe to beliefs that are not in the doctrine of beliefs.”
When Sandia’s attorney, Charles Vigil, stepped up to the podium, U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh immediately sought to clarify his client’s status as a corporation or a federal agency.
“Honeywell is a private entity, it is incorporated, and as part of Honeywell, Sandia is a subsidiary and an LLC,” Vigil explained.
The Barack Obama appointee then asked Vigil on whether taking away resources from an employee organization amounted to removing a benefit.
“If I were to think that was a benefit to the employees, hasn’t there been a loss of benefits due to the implementation of the policy?” McHugh asked.
Vigil argued that since the groups were voluntary and didn’t relate to any work conducted there was no loss of benefit. He also sought to clarify the reason the company stopped supporting the group.
“It wasn’t the statement of faith that was the problem,” Vigil said. “It was in the context of how this organization would appoint its leadership, and we would potentially be in a position to say ‘hey if you’re going to be in this group, you have to be a certain kind of Christian.’”
Although Vigil left four minutes on the clock, the panel granted Considine one extra minute to clarify one last point.
The panel heard argument at the Byron White U.S. Courthouse in downtown Denver. The court did not indicate when or how it would decide the case.