Case: Carpenter v. Boeing Company

6:02-cv-01019 | U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

Filed Date: Jan. 16, 2002

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

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 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 practi…

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.

Summary Authors

Kunyi Zhang (7/2/2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4729574/parties/carpenter-v-boeing-company/


Judge(s)

Brown, Wesley Ernest (Kansas)

Hartz, Harris L. (New Mexico)

Humphreys, Karen M. (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arai, Ivy D (Washington)

Berman, Steve W. (Washington)

Casey, Derek S. (Kansas)

Cohen, Michael L. (Washington)

Hutton, Mark B. (Kansas)

Sprung, Jeffrey Todd (Washington)

Volk, Andrew M. (Washington)

Judge(s)

Brown, Wesley Ernest (Kansas)

Hartz, Harris L. (New Mexico)

Humphreys, Karen M. (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arai, Ivy D (Washington)

Berman, Steve W. (Washington)

Casey, Derek S. (Kansas)

Cohen, Michael L. (Washington)

Hutton, Mark B. (Kansas)

Sprung, Jeffrey Todd (Washington)

Volk, Andrew M. (Washington)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Armstrong, James M. (Kansas)

Babcock, Mary Kathleen (Kansas)

Brice-Brown, Barbara (District of Columbia)

Byers, Boyd A (Kansas)

Matthews, Carolyn L. (Kansas)

O'Neill, Maureen (Georgia)

Stout, Mikel L. (Kansas)

Thelen, Trisha A (Kansas)

Weirich, C. Geoffrey (Georgia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

June 26, 2007 Docket
366

Memorandum and Order (granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative to decertify)

2004 WL 2661691, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24296

Feb. 24, 2004 Order/Opinion
399

Memorandum and Order (denying Plaintiff's motion for Rule 54(b) certification)

223 F.R.D. 552

Aug. 11, 2004 Order/Opinion

Opinion (10th Circuit, affirming the district court's summary judgment)

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

456 F.3d 1183

Aug. 7, 2006 Order/Opinion
454

Order (denying Defendant's Motion for Hearing)

2007 WL 1114072, 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27490

April 12, 2007 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4729574/carpenter-v-boeing-company/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
454

ORDER granting 446 defendant Boeing's Motion to Dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Sandy Wilcynski, Mary Dean, Faith Bridgewater, and Verlene Maholmes; and denying as moot 448 defendant's Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Wesley E. Brown on 4/12/07. (jh)

April 12, 2007 RECAP

State / Territory: Kansas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 16, 2002

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs were female employees hired by defendant in its Kansas operations.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Boeing Company, Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits