Christians in the Workplace Networking Group v. National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC
(10th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In Christians in the Workplace Networking Group v. Sandia the Tenth Circuit confronted a multi-count lawsuit brought by an employee resource group (“CWNG”) after Sandia National Laboratories withdrew official sponsorship of the group for violating the employer’s non-discrimination policy. The appellate court addressed three principal questions:

1. Whether an unincorporated association may sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the district court properly denied CWNG leave to add new claims after the scheduling-order deadline.
3. Whether CWNG could survive summary judgment on its Title VII religious-accommodation, constitutional, and conspiracy claims.

Two individual developments give the decision heightened significance: (1) the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), which lowered the threshold for “adverse employment action” under Title VII, and (2) the court’s reaffirmation that unincorporated associations are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983.

Summary of the Judgment

• Leave to Amend Denied: The court held CWNG failed to establish “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4) and undue-delay/undue-prejudice factors under Rule 15(a)(2) for adding RFRA and additional Title VII claims fourteen months after suit was filed.
• § 1983 & Conspiracy Claims: Summary judgment for defendants because (a) CWNG, an unincorporated association, is not a “person” under § 1983 (Becker; Lippoldt), and (b) CWNG abandoned the conspiracy theory.
• Title VII Religious-Accommodation Claim: Summary judgment for Sandia. CWNG waived its prima-facie arguments; regardless, it offered no evidence of an adverse employment action even under the newly relaxed Muldrow standard.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe & Lippoldt v. Cole
  Reiterated that Congress did not extend § 1983 to unincorporated associations; this single proposition doomed five of CWNG’s seven counts.
• Hamric v. Wilderness Expeditions, Tesone v. Empire Marketing, Birch v. Polaris, Husky Ventures, and Gorsuch, Ltd.
  Form the Tenth Circuit’s stringent two-step test for amendments after a scheduling order: parties must satisfy both Rule 16(b)(4) (“good cause”) and Rule 15(a)(2) (“freely give leave”)— a standard CWNG did not meet.
• Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. 2024) & Scheer v. Sisters of Charity (10th Cir. 2025)
  Although Muldrow lowers the adverse-action bar, CWNG’s failure to argue the point in district court operated as waiver, illustrating that doctrinal change cannot rescue abandoned theories.
• Cross v. Home Depot and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
  Emphasize the party’s duty to cite record evidence; CWNG’s generalities were insufficient to create a fact issue.

2. Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 16 “Good Cause” and Rule 15 “Undue Delay.” The court accepted Sandia’s argument that CWNG knew all operative facts well before the amendment deadline; the later-produced expert report merely confirmed existing issues rather than revealing new facts. Because CWNG could have pleaded RFRA and additional Title VII theories from the outset, delay was unjustified.
2. Personhood under § 1983. Echoing long-standing circuit precedent, the panel summarily concluded that CWNG could not invoke § 1983, rendering detailed state-action analysis unnecessary.
3. Title VII Prima Facie Case. The court applied the traditional three-part framework (religious belief, notice, adverse action). CWNG’s failure to brief the prima facie elements constituted waiver. Even if considered, loss of ERG sponsorship—without evidence of lost pay, discipline or other tangible detriment—did not satisfy the “some harm” test.
4. Waiver and Abandonment. The opinion underscores a recurrent theme: silence in response to targeted summary-judgment arguments is fatal. The panel treated CWNG’s oral-argument concession as waiver of all § 1983 theories.

3. Impact of the Decision

• Organizational Standing. Employee groups, affinity clubs, and similar unincorporated entities cannot resort to § 1983 in the Tenth Circuit. They must either incorporate or rely on individual members to sue.
• Religious-Accommodation Litigation After Muldrow. While Muldrow lowers the injury threshold, this case illustrates the change is not self-executing—parties must preserve and substantiate the issue.
• Strategic Pleading and Scheduling Orders. Litigants cannot assume late-arising legal theories (e.g., RFRA) will be allowed merely because the underlying facts are the same. Diligence in amending before the Rule 16 deadline is imperative.
• Employer ERG Policies. Employers may withdraw discretionary benefits (funding, meeting space, official endorsement) from resource groups that contravene neutral anti-discrimination rules, without automatically incurring Title VII liability—provided no term or condition of employment is affected.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Unincorporated Association: A group with no separate legal identity from its members. Such an association lacks the statutory “personhood” needed to sue under § 1983.
• § 1983 “Person” Requirement: Only natural persons and certain legal entities (e.g., corporations, municipalities) may sue; Congress excluded unincorporated associations.
• Rule 16(b)(4) “Good Cause”: A party must show it could not meet the existing deadline despite diligent efforts—that is, truly new facts or law surfaced later.
• Rule 15(a)(2) Factors: Even after “good cause,” courts ask whether amendment would be unduly delayed, prejudicial, futile, or in bad faith.
• Prima Facie Case (Title VII Religious Accommodation): (1) Sincere religious belief conflicting with a job requirement; (2) notice to employer; (3) some adverse change in employment because of the conflict. Under Muldrow “adverse” now means any action that leaves the employee “worse off,” not necessarily “significantly worse.”
• Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right (e.g., conceding an issue at oral argument); forfeiture is an unintentional failure to raise an argument. Both bar later revival in the appellate court.

Conclusion

Christians in the Workplace Networking Group v. Sandia is less about the merits of religious freedom than about litigation architecture. The Tenth Circuit:

• Re-affirmed that who can sue under § 1983 is strictly limited.
• Demonstrated the continued vitality of the dual Rule 16/Rule 15 filter for late amendments.
• Issued a cautionary tale on waiver: doctrinal shifts like Muldrow offer no refuge for parties who ignore elementary summary-judgment burdens.

Going forward, employers can take comfort that the revocation of discretionary ERG benefits will not invariably trigger Title VII liability, and litigants—especially associations—are reminded to attend closely to procedural checkpoints, to preserve arguments at every stage, and to organize themselves in a legal form capable of invoking the statutes they wish to deploy.