Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—10th Cir.: Christian workplace group that lost employer sponsorship cannot revive claims, (Jul 30, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Employer sponsorship was withdrawn when it determined that the group’s policies restricting leadership to those willing to attest to a Christian statement of faith violated workplace policies.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII, constitutional and civil conspiracy claims brought by a Christian workplace group against its employer, the Tenth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, found that the district court did not err in denying the group’s motion to amend its complaint after the scheduled deadline to amend pleadings. Further, it agreed that summary judgment was appropriate on the constitutional claims as the group was an improper plaintiff for Section 1983 purposes given that it was an unincorporated association. As to the Title VII claim, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the group failed to make any argument regarding a prima facie case for discrimination (Christians in the Workplace Networking Group v. National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, No. 24-2072 (10th Cir. July 29, 2025, unpublished)).

Christians in the Workplace Networking Group (CWNG) is a resource group of employees at the National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia (Sandia). Sandia manages and operates a national security laboratory on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Employer sponsored groups. Sandia recognizes certain employer sponsored resource groups (ERGs). These groups can be “based on social identity, shared characteristics, or life experiences.” Employees are not required to participate in any ERG.

ERGs have access to “operational funds” for approved expenses, such as approved speakers and promotional items.

Sponsorship withdrawn. In August 2018, Sandia adopted a non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy that prohibited discrimination based on certain traits, including religion. Following the adoption of this policy, Sandia requested that all ERGs provide their strategic plans and other formation documents for review.

CWNG’s policies about leadership positions were described in its strategic plan. After reviewing that plan, Sandia determined that the policies restricting leadership only to those willing to attest to a Christian statement of faith and adhere to Christian Biblical standards of conduct were discriminatory because they excluded employees based on their religious beliefs. Sandia asked that CWNG revise its plan. CWNG requested a religious accommodation. When the two parties were unable to reach an agreement, Sandia withdrew its sponsorship of the group.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, CWNG filed this lawsuit. The complaint asserted seven claims. The first was a Title VII claim for failure to accommodate religious beliefs. The second through sixth claims were asserted under Section 1983 and alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The seventh claim alleged that Sandia conspired with the Department of Energy to violate the constitutional rights of CWNG.

Leave to amend. After the deadline for amending pleadings had passed, CWNG moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. It explained that its only proposed changes were to add claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a distinct claim for religious discrimination under Title VII. It maintained that the conduct here was the same as stated in its first amended complaint and that the new claims would require much of the same evidence as the existing claims.

Sandia insisted the motion was untimely, arguing that a party must satisfy both FRCP 15(a) and 16(b) to amend its pleadings after a scheduling order deadline. Among other arguments, Sandia observed that Rule 16(b)(4) imposes a “good cause” standard, and the motion did set forth any argument for good cause. The district court agreed.

According to the district court, CWNG could not satisfy the good cause standard as it knew of the underlying conduct but had simply failed to raise its claims and had failed to show that the scheduling deadlines could not be met despite its diligent efforts. The district court held that CWNG’s motion evinced undue delay and would have unduly prejudiced Sandia.

Not proper parties. Turning to CWNG’s Section 1983 claims, Sandia raised several arguments, including that CWNG was not a person entitled to sue under Section 1983 and that Sandia was not a government actor subject to Section 1983 claims. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment to Sandia against these claims, finding that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were proper parties. It also granted summary judgment against the civil conspiracy claim given CWNG’s response failed to even mention this claim.

Failure to accommodate. In a separate motion, Sandia moved for summary judgment on the Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim, arguing CWNG failed to establish its prima facie case. The district court agreed, granting the motion after finding that CWNG failed to make any arguments concerning its prima facie case. This appeal followed.

Deadline to amend. First, with regard to CWNG’s motion for leave to amend, the parties reprised their arguments from the district court, and the court here found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend. As the district court reasoned, when CWNG filed its operative complaint, it was aware of the underlying facts upon which its proposed amendment was based, and CWNG had not explained why a different conclusion was warranted, observed the appellate court.

Section 1983 claims. Next, the court considered CWNG’s Section 1983 and civil conspiracy claims. Here, the court found that CWNG, as an unincorporated association, was an improper plaintiff for Section 1983 purposes. The court noted that it had previously held that “unincorporated associations are not persons entitled to sue under § 1983.” Thus, the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Section 1983 claims was affirmed.

As to the civil conspiracy claim, CWNG raised no argument about this claim on appeal. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed on that claim as well.

Title VII. Finally, the court addressed CWNG’s Title VII claim. Here, the court agreed with Sandia that CWNG had waived any argument that it established a prima facie case.

In Sandia’s motion for summary judgment, it argued that CWNG could not establish the first and third elements of a prima facie case. In response, CWNG appeared to offer no argument about its prima facie case. Its only reference to a prima facie case came in a single sentence about qualified immunity—which was not at issue—and even then CWNG did not mention the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case.

As the district court observed, “Plaintiff made no arguments about its prima facie case,” and CWNG does not challenge that conclusion on appeal, explained the court. Thus, CWNG waived the arguments it now makes supporting its prima facie case, and the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-2072.

Judge: Rossman, V.

Attorneys: J. Michael Considine (Law Office of J. Michael Considine, Jr.) for Christians in the Workplace Networking Group. Jocelyn C. Drennan (Rodey Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb) for National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, Esther Hernandez, Aaron Jim and Bianca Hill.

Companies: Christians in the Workplace Networking Group; National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination CoverageLiability IndividualRights Procedure ColoradoNews KansasNews NewMexicoNews OklahomaNews UtahNews WyomingNews