Boeing 2009 Annual Report Download - page 117

2010, and if it decides to review the case, to issue a decision in 2010 or 2011. If the United States
Supreme Court declines review of the Court of Appeals’ decision, or if it reviews the decision and
determines, contrary to our belief, that a termination for default was appropriate, we could incur an
additional loss of up to $275, consisting principally of $235 of remaining inventory costs. If the courts
further hold that a money judgment should be entered against the Team, we could be required to pay
the U.S. government up to one-half of the unliquidated progress payments of $1,350 plus statutory
interest from February 1991 (currently totaling up to $1,485). In that event, our loss would total
approximately $1,690 in pre-tax charges. Should, however, the March 31, 1998 judgment of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims in favor of the Team be reinstated, we could be entitled to receive payment of
approximately $1,144, including interest from June 26, 1991.
Employment and Benefits Litigation
On March 2, 2006, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit) near the time of our
sale of the Wichita facility were tainted by age discrimination, violated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), violated our collective bargaining agreements, and constituted retaliation. The
case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit. While we believe that Spirit
has an obligation to indemnify Boeing for claims relating to the 2005 sales transaction, Spirit has
refused to indemnify Boeing for all claims arising from employment activity prior to January 1, 2005. On
June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to join the Age Discrimination Employment Act
collective action and were terminated by Boeing prior to January 1, 2005 were dismissed by stipulated
order. On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification for certain former Boeing
employees at the Wichita, Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who were laid off between
January 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were not hired by Spirit on June 17, 2005. On July 31, 2009,
Boeing filed motions opposing class certification and seeking dismissal of the ERISA and breach of
contract claims. On August 14, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking dismissal, or in the alternative,
decertification of the age claims. Plaintiffs’ reply brief on certification of ERISA §510 and Labor-
Management Relations Act (LMRA) §301 classes was filed on August 28, 2009. Plaintiffs’ response to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ ERISA §510 and LMRA §301 claims was filed
on September 11, 2009. These motions are fully briefed and are pending before the court.
A second alleged class action involving our sale of the Wichita facility to Spirit was filed on
February 21, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The case is also brought under
ERISA, and, in general, claims that we have not properly provided benefits to certain categories of
former employees affected by the sale.On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class. On July 14, 2008, the court granted class certification
for the purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who went to work for Spirit, and
deferred class certification motions for the class of employees who did not go to work for Spirit. A
Memorandum and Order on November 3, 2009 resolves discovery disputes and discovery continues
for both groups of employees.
On September 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that recently announced changes to medical plans
for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of collective bargaining agreements under §301 of
the LMRA and §502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. On September 15, 2006, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the International UAW and two retiree medical plan
participants seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that we have the legal right to make changes to
these medical benefits. On June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that its case be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. The two cases were consolidated on September 24,
2007. On January 17, 2008, the court granted the UAW’s motion to amend the complaint to drop the
retirees’ claim for vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective bargaining agreements and
105