Bell v. The Boeing Company

W.D. Washington

Bell v. The Boeing Company

DecidedMarch 18, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-01716

StatusUnknown

This text of Bell v. The Boeing Company (Bell v. The Boeing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. The Boeing Company, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ANDREW BELL and BECKY BELL, CASE NO. 20-CV-01716-LK 11 husband and wife, ORDER REGARDING 12 Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING v. 13 THE BOEING COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment and responsive 17 briefs. Dkt. Nos. 17, 23, 33, 36, 42, 43. The Court, in its discretion, orders supplemental briefing 18 in this case. See Flores v. City of Lakewood, C15-5013-BHS-JRC, 2016 WL 4193866, at *2 (W.D. 19 Wash. Aug. 9, 2016). Within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall each submit supplemental 20 briefs of no more than 12 pages in length addressing the following two issues: 21 (1) Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) referenced in Boeing’s 22 November 3, 2017 contingent offer letter formed part of the agreement between Bell 23 24 1 and Boeing, including whether there was mutual assent to all material terms of the CBA 2 at the relevant time(s); and 3 (2) If so, whether this case presents “special circumstances warrant[ing] a finding that, 4 despite the presence of a seniority system . . . , the requested ‘accommodation’ is

5 ‘reasonable’ on the particular facts.” US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 405 6 (2002). 7 The parties’ discussion of the second issue should include, but is not limited to, whether Boeing’s 8 “exclusive right” under Section 5.4 of the CBA to deviate from the seniority system “to ensure 9 operational efficiency” creates the “special circumstances” that the Supreme Court envisioned in 10 Barnett. See also Section 5.4(a) (“[S]hift preferences as defined will not apply in instances where 11 the exercise of such rights would affect the efficiency of Company operations in any organization 12 on any shift.”). 13 14 Dated this 18th day of March, 2022.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ANDREW BELL and BECKY BELL, CASE NO. 20-CV-01716-LK 11 husband and wife, ORDER REGARDING 12 Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING v. 13 THE BOEING COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment and responsive 17 briefs. Dkt. Nos. 17, 23, 33, 36, 42, 43. The Court, in its discretion, orders supplemental briefing 18 in this case. See Flores v. City of Lakewood, C15-5013-BHS-JRC, 2016 WL 4193866, at *2 (W.D. 19 Wash. Aug. 9, 2016). Within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall each submit supplemental 20 briefs of no more than 12 pages in length addressing the following two issues: 21 (1) Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) referenced in Boeing’s 22 November 3, 2017 contingent offer letter formed part of the agreement between Bell 23 24 1 and Boeing, including whether there was mutual assent to all material terms of the CBA 2 at the relevant time(s); and 3 (2) If so, whether this case presents “special circumstances warrant[ing] a finding that, 4 despite the presence of a seniority system . . . , the requested ‘accommodation’ is

5 ‘reasonable’ on the particular facts.” US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 405 6 (2002). 7 The parties’ discussion of the second issue should include, but is not limited to, whether Boeing’s 8 “exclusive right” under Section 5.4 of the CBA to deviate from the seniority system “to ensure 9 operational efficiency” creates the “special circumstances” that the Supreme Court envisioned in 10 Barnett. See also Section 5.4(a) (“[S]hift preferences as defined will not apply in instances where 11 the exercise of such rights would affect the efficiency of Company operations in any organization 12 on any shift.”). 13 14 Dated this 18th day of March, 2022.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bell v. The Boeing Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-the-boeing-company-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack