University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Carpenter v. Boeing Company EE-KS-0034
Docket / Court 6:02-cv-1019 ( D. Kan. )
State/Territory Kansas
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
On January 16, 2002, several female employees of defendant in its Kansas operations filed a lawsuit under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, and state law against defendant Boeing Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Wichita ... read more >
On January 16, 2002, several female employees of defendant in its Kansas operations filed a lawsuit under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, and state law against defendant Boeing Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Wichita Division. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged gender discrimination in Boeing's compensation and overtime policies. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Boeing's company-wide practice for setting starting salaries and raises systematically and giving supervisors discretion in assigning overtime disadvantaged its female employees, and that Boeing's failure to correct these practices upon knowledge of them constituted intentional discrimination against its female employees.

Discovery was conducted in phases, beginning with the class certification issue. On April 25, 2003, the district court (Judge Wesley Brown) granted certification under Rule 23(b)(2) to both the Hourly and Salaried Subclasses on their disparate-impact claims. Certification was denied on all disparate-treatment claims. However, on February 24, 2004, the court granted Boeing's motion to decertify the disparate-impact claim of the Salaried Subclass, leaving only the Hourly Subclass's disparate-impact claim.

In response to this, the plaintiffs filed renewed motions for class certification on April 2, 2004, and August 27, 2004, respectively. But the court denied both motions.

On February 24, 2004, the district court granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment on the disparate-impact claim of the Hourly Subclass. The plaintiffs then appealed to the 10th Circuit. However, on August 7, 2006, the 10th Circuit (Judge Harris Hartz) affirmed the district court's summary judgment.

On June 26, 2007, the district court ordered that all claims of the plaintiffs against the defendant be dismissed.

Kunyi Zhang - 07/02/2010


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Defendant-type
Transportation
Discrimination-area
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
State law
Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)
Defendant(s) Boeing Company
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs were female employees hired by defendant in its Kansas operations.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2007
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
6:02-cv-1019 (D. Kan.) 06/26/2007
EE-KS-0034-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum and Order (granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative to decertify) 02/24/2004 (2004 WL 2661691 / 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24296) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0034-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order (denying Plaintiff's motion for Rule 54(b) certification) 08/11/2004 (223 F.R.D. 552) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0034-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (10th Circuit, affirming the district court's summary judgment) 08/07/2006 (456 F.3d 1183)
EE-KS-0034-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (denying Defendant's Motion for Hearing) 04/12/2007 (2007 WL 1114072 / 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27490) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0034-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Brown, Wesley Ernest (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0034-0001 | EE-KS-0034-0002 | EE-KS-0034-0003 | EE-KS-0034-9000
Hartz, Harris L. (Tenth Circuit)
EE-KS-0034-0004
Humphreys, Karen M. (D. Kan.) [Magistrate]
EE-KS-0034-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Arai, Ivy D (Washington)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Berman, Steve W. (Washington)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Casey, Derek S. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Cohen, Michael L. (Washington)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Hutton, Mark B. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Sprung, Jeffrey Todd (Washington)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Volk, Andrew M. (Washington)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Armstrong, James M. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Babcock, Mary Kathleen (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Brice-Brown, Barbara (District of Columbia)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Byers, Boyd A (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Matthews, Carolyn L. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
O'Neill, Maureen (Georgia)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Stout, Mikel L. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Thelen, Trisha A (Kansas)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Weirich, C. Geoffrey (Georgia)
EE-KS-0034-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -