On July 29, 1999, several employees filed a lawsuit against their employer, The Boeing Company, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged employment discrimination and asked the court for injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged race and national origin discrimination, as well as pattern and practice and disparate impact. They contended that the delegation of hiring, promotion, and layoff decisions to first level managers, the use of primarily subjective criteria in making those decisions, and the use of "totem" groups to evaluate and rank employees created statistically significant disparities between the salaries and promotion rates of potential class members and the rest of the Boeing work force.
According to PACER documents, on July 7, 2000, the court (Judge Robert S. Lasnik) granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the cases Nouri v. The Boeing Company; Nouri v. The Boeing Company; Golchin v. The Boeing Company; and Sharma v. The Boeing Company. On August 4, 2000, the court (Judge Lasnik) severed the claims of the plaintiffs.
According to PACER documents, on January 25, 2001, the defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On May 24, 2001, the court (Judge Lasnik) granted in part the motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' disparate impact claims. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of "all current and former Asian American employees who have been employed at Boeing's facilities in the State of Washington as salaried employees below the level of first level manager at any time from July 29, 1996 through the present." However, on May 24, 2001, the court (Judge Lasnik) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification because they had failed to establish typicality and adequate representation.
According to the PACER docket, on May 22, 2002, the court (Judge Lasnik) granted the plaintiffs' third request for class certification. On February 20, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's permission to appeal the district court's May 22, 2002 order.
According to the PACER docket, on July 15, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint against the defendant. On January 8, 2004, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on class claims. On March 25, 2004, the court (Judge Lasnik) granted the plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate. The same day the court granted in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment on class claims.
Following a jury trial, on June 2, 2004, the jury issued a finding in favor of the defendant. On June 3, 2004, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. However, on June 4, 2004, the court (Judge Lasnik) issued an order vacating the June 2 judgment and reopened the case because the disparate impact claims remained pending. That day the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not suffer disparate impact in compensation.
According to the PACER docket, on September 30, 2004, the court granted the defendant's motion for bill of costs in the amount of $56,859.76 against the plaintiffs. On August 11, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.Emily Kuznick - 05/01/2008