Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. Wash.: Boeing granted dismissal of discrimination claim by former company attorney, (Jul 23, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

“Communications with clients that went outside of her scope of employment, along with ignoring direct orders not to communicate, are a legitimate reason to terminate her employment.”

A former employee of The Boeing Company, who worked as an attorney, had her claims of racial discrimination dismissed, since the district court in Washington found that Boeing met its burden of producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her. Other claims of pretext, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, retaliation, and a hostile work environment were also found lacking for the case to move forward (Kang v. The Boeing Co., No. 2:24-cv-00294-RSM (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2025)).

Initially hired in 2010 as an attorney for the Boeing law department, the former employee served as a Contracts Director, beginning around 2018, and led a team that negotiated contracts with military and governmental customers who purchased Boeing commercial derivative aircraft. According to Boeing, the former employee was fired in 2021 after she refused to stop meeting with clients as requested by the company, since some clients had requested not to have her be part of negotiations.

The former employee contended that she had been a victim of racial discrimination as an Asian woman, produced some evidence of such discrimination, but conceded that that she never complained to Boeing about any raced-based mistreatment during her employment.

Racial discrimination. Boeing argued that the former employee gained a reputation for mistreating and offending her colleagues, subordinates, and customers, citing to declarations of six formers coworkers whose statements generally supported that characterization. However, evidence of derogatory remarks made by coworkers were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, according to the court.

Taking the next step, the court then found that Boeing met its burden of production to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment. The court wrote, “Her difficult relationships with co-workers, which are not disputed would be enough to terminate her in efforts to protect Boeing’s employees and improve its work environment. Additionally, her communications with clients that went outside of her scope of employment, along with ignoring direct orders not to communicate, are a legitimate reason to terminate her employment.”

Pretext. The former employee pointed out that the state of Washington follows the cat’s paw theory of discrimination where “the employer does not escape liability if an unbiased decision maker disciplines an employee where a biased subordinate who lacks decision-making power clearly caused such discipline.” However, the court found that the former employee failed to point out specific instances where the discriminatory comments were shared with the decision-making individuals, and that made the cat’s paw theory inapplicable.

Public policy. The argument that the dismissal was wrongful based on public policy also failed. The court noted that since the underlying claim for unlawful discrimination was dismissed, Boeing adequately argued that the violation of public policy claim could not survive without the underlying claim.

Whistleblower retaliation. The former employee also claimed that Boeing terminated her employment after she engaged in statutorily protected activity by raising issues regarding legal violations when handling business deals. In a light most favorable to the former employee, the court found that the temporal proximity between the alleged protected activity and the former employee’s termination was sufficient for a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation. However, the court ruled that Boeing met its burden of production to articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for terminating her employment— her performance, difficult relationships, and failure to comply with orders.

Complaint retaliation. Boeing pointed out that although the former employee claimed she was retaliated against after raising concerns about her treatment by leadership, it was undisputed that she did not make a complaint about race-based mistreatment to Boeing’s Ethics, Human Resources, Law Department, or any other person at Boeing. Boeing also argued that the former employee asking her manager if her race was a factor for being excluded from meetings was not a statutorily protected action. The former employee did not respond to those arguments and the court agreed with Boeing, finding that she failed to present an essential element of her retaliation claim.

Other claims. Breach of contract and hostile work environment claims were also dismissed. No genuine issue of fact surrounded the contract claim, the court found. On the hostile work environment claim, the former employee failed to demonstrate that Boeing’s employees alleged conduct was sufficiently pervasive to constitute a constant hostile work environment.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00294-RSM.

Judge: Martinez, R.

Attorneys: Todd W. Wyatt (Wyatt Gronski) for Jane Kang. Laurence A. Shapero (Ogletree Deakins) for The Boeing Co.

Companies: The Boeing Company

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Whistleblowers Discharge StateLawClaims WashingtonNews