Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Can a Judge Make Lawyers Attend “Religious Liberty Training”? This Court Said Nope.
A recent Fifth Circuit decision offers a pointed reminder to employers, litigators, and trial courts alike: enforcement authority has limits—even after a verdict. At the center of the controversy? A court-ordered “religious liberty training” imposed on a corporate defendant’s attorneys by a judge dissatisfied with how the company communicated a jury’s verdict. Here’s how that unfolded—and why the appellate court stepped in.
TL;DR: A federal judge held an employer in contempt after it sent a post-verdict email that allegedly failed to comply with a court order. As a sanction, the judge required three in-house lawyers to attend training conducted by a religious advocacy group. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding the order legally unjustified and an improper use of civil contempt authority.
A Rare Sanction, A Clear Line Crossed
The underlying case involved an employee who alleged religious discrimination after being fired for expressing pro-life views she considered grounded in her Christian faith. The jury found in her favor on specific Title VII claims, including that the employer failed to accommodate her religious expression. It did not, however, find in her favor on all claims—particularly those focused on religious belief rather than practice. The Fifth Circuit later threw out the belief-based claim for insufficient evidence.
Following the verdict, the court ordered the employer to notify its workforce that it “may not discriminate” based on religion. The company sent an email stating that it “does not discriminate”—a slight linguistic difference, but one the court viewed as significant.
The judge interpreted this phrasing as an effort to downplay the jury’s findings. He concluded that the company—and specifically its legal team—demonstrated a lack of understanding of Title VII’s religious accommodation obligations. To address that perceived failure, he imposed an unusual sanction: mandatory “religious liberty training” for three in-house lawyers, conducted by a specific advocacy organization.
The order drew scrutiny—and eventually, a reversal.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the contempt order and explained, in detail, why the training mandate couldn’t stand. Here are the key procedural and remedial issues that led the appellate court to act:
The Three Big Problems
-
The sanction was punitive, not remedial. Civil contempt is meant to secure compliance or compensate harm. The court found that ordering lawyers to undergo training was aimed at punishment, not compliance.
-
No individual misconduct was found. The attorneys ordered to attend training weren’t involved in the underlying conduct or decision to terminate the plaintiff. The record contained no evidence of animus or bad faith on their part.
-
The training order was overbroad. The court noted that the training extended beyond Title VII and wasn’t limited to topics necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment. It wasn’t the least restrictive means available and wasn’t narrowly tailored to the issue at hand.
Why Employers (and Their Lawyers) Should Care
Although the facts here are unusual, the decision underscores how post-verdict messaging—especially when connected to a court order—can have unexpected legal consequences. Courts may closely scrutinize language for signs of noncompliance, and even well-intentioned communications can create exposure if they’re perceived as diminishing or recharacterizing the outcome. This case also illustrates that in-house counsel can be drawn into enforcement proceedings based on their roles in crafting or approving corporate messaging. The key takeaway: post-verdict compliance is more than operational—it’s legal strategy, and the tools courts use to enforce it must be tied closely to the record and the conduct at issue.