The Boeing Company
180 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1988–2026)
38 trusted published court opinions across 32 distinct cases · 19 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list The Boeing Company as an employer in 180 distinct federal employment cases between 1988 and 2026.
Of the 38 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 21 ended in a ruling for the employer, 6 ended in a ruling for the worker, 6 had a mixed result, and 4 were sent back to a lower court.
Plaintiffs won 6 of 34 adjudicated opinions (18%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment.
Cases were filed across 9 states, most often in SC.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 32 distinct cases.
6 of 34 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
The Boeing Company appears in 38 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Winstead v. Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc. (2025) — Defendant Win. A worker filed a lawsuit against Boeing Aerospace Operations, claiming they were fired because of their race. The worker believed discrimination played a role in the termination decision. Read the ruling.
Dowling v. The Boeing Company (2023) — Defendant Win. In Dowling v. The Boeing Company, a worker filed an employment-related lawsuit against the aerospace giant Boeing. While the specific details of the worker's complaints aren't provided in the available information, the case involved employment law issues that prompted the employee to take legal action against their emp… Read the ruling.
Lewis v. Boeing (2022) — Defendant Win. Lewis filed a lawsuit against Boeing claiming he faced age discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The case involved claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal law protecting workers 40 and older from age-based mistreatment. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (16 of 38), Retaliation (14 of 38), Hostile Work Environment (10 of 38). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117) — The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. See the ADA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. ADA.
Published opinions span South Carolina (5), Washington (4), Kansas (2), California (2). South Carolina is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. South Carolina rulings, Washington rulings, Kansas rulings and California rulings.
These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
36 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 8 summary-judgment opinions, 6 ended the case in The Boeing Company’s favor and 2 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Finance employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.