In Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) v. the Boeing Company (filed August 18, 2009), female engineers Antonia Castron and Renee Wrede contested their selection during a reduction in force (RIF) conducted by the Boeing Company.

Antonia Castron had earlier made allegations of a hostile work environment, and her male supervisor had repeatedly denied her request to transfer out of the department.  The supervisor eventually promised to transfer Castron to the department she requested, but later reneged on that promise.  The supervisor then transferred Castron to a different department to which no other engineers from her department had been transferred in recent years.  Castron had no particular experience or skills for working in this new department, which was subsequently reflected by her low RIF scores.  Nevertheless, Castron’s supervisor assured her that she would be exempt from the RIF process during her training.  The EEOC argued that he did so in order to induce Castron to accept the transfer, despite her explicit (and evidently warranted) concern that the transfer might significantly increase her risk of termination.

Furthermore, Castron’s male supervisor had a well known history of making derogatory comments about women, although not made directly to Castron.  The Appellate Court held that these comments could be seen by a jury as circumstantial evidence of his bias against women in the workplace.

With regard to employee Renee Wrede, her male supervisor indicated inaccurate information on her RIF assessment, such as a “zero” score, indicating she had no experience in particular areas where she had received higher scores for the same categories in earlier RIFs.  The supervisor also rated her significantly lower in communication skills areas, but was unable to point to any specific examples. 

In contrast, coworkers and other managers who were familiar with Wrede’s work spoke highly of her skills, citing specific examples and stating that she should have been given higher scores.  They commented that Wrede exemplified skill and performed much better than several of her male counterparts who were not terminated during the RIF process.

Finally, none of the men in Wrede’s skill code category were laid off, while Wrede, the only woman in her skill code, was terminated.  Of note is that all the male employees who were identified for RIF layoffs remained at Boeing – some being transferred to other departments, with the assistance of supervisors.  However, none of these supervisors offered any such assistance to Wrede.

After Wrede and Castron received low scores on the RIF assessments, Boeing used these assessments to select them for termination.  Wrede and Castron filed charges with the EEOC and it brought a suit for discrimination and retaliation against Boeing.  When the matter went to trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment in favor of Boeing, finding that the EEOC failed to present sufficient evidence to establish pretext regarding any of the claims.  The EEOC timely appealed.

The Appellate Court noted that the facts of the case could possibly persuade a jury that Boeing’s claims of a legitimate business rationale for the termination of Wrede could be  pretextual.  Furthermore, the court stated that a jury might conclude that Castron’s supervisor deliberately set her up to fail because of her sex, or because of her pursuit of her rights under Title VII.  Accordingly, the case was sent back to the lower court to conduct a trial on both the discrimination and retaliation claims

If you have questions about this case, or any other employment-related matter, please contact our office.

Patricia Jeanne Howze, Esq.
Gillian G.M. Small, Esq.

After reading this issue, if you have any questions, please contact Patricia Jeanne Howze at 415.435.9484 or send an email request.

Century Update is provided quarterly to provide a review of recent employment law.  It is not meant to be, and should not be considered legal advice.

Copyright© 2010 by Patricia Jeanne Howze.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction of this publication by any means without the express written permission of Patricia Jeanne Howze is prohibited.

Download the PDF version of Century Update here.