A federal judge on Thursday rejected Boeing's agreement to plead guilty to fraud charges in the wake of two 737 MAX crashes, citing flaws in the agreement's diversity and inclusion provisions.
Boeing had no immediate comment. A spokeswoman said the Justice Department, which brokered the plea deal with Boeing, is reviewing the opinion. Options for Boeing and the Justice Department could include appealing the judge's rejection of the plea deal or submitting a renegotiated agreement for court approval.
Reed O'Connor, a U.S. district judge in Fort Worth, Texas, who has a history of ruling in favor of conservative causes, cited the Justice Department's diversity policy regarding the selection of independent monitors to audit airplane manufacturers in the plea deal. One sentence caught my attention. Compliance practices. He asked Boeing and prosecutors to further explain the case in October.
O'Connor ruled that Boeing and the Justice Department have 30 days to report to the court how they plan to proceed with the case.
Judges reviewing plea deals typically do not overturn them on issues not in dispute by the parties to the agreement. In rare cases, it's usually because the judge wants to impose a different penalty than the one the prosecutor agreed to.
O'Connor said in his ruling that the plea deal “alienates” judges in selecting and monitoring independent monitors and imposes probation conditions that require Boeing to follow the monitor's anti-corruption recommendations. He said it was prohibited. He said the agreement was “not in the public interest.”
Relatives of victims of two 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people say the agreement fails to adequately hold Boeing accountable for the deaths of their loved ones. They claim that it is a sweetheart agreement.
Two plane crashes occurred in Indonesia and Ethiopia within a five-month period. The families briefly mentioned the Justice Department's diversity and inclusion policies in court filings opposing the plea deal, but did not elaborate on their concerns.
“Judge O'Connor's firm rejection of a plea deal is an important victory for the victims' families,” said Paul Cassel, a lawyer representing the victims.
“Judge O'Connor said this failed to focus on the most important concern: holding Boeing accountable for serious crimes and ensuring that nothing like this happens again in the future. “It was a comfortable deal between them,'' Cassel said. Said.
Cassel said he hopes the decision will lead to a renegotiation of agreements that specifically address passengers and crew killed in plane crashes.
If the plea deal is approved, Boeing would be branded a guilty felon for conspiring to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration over problematic software that affected the flight control systems of crashed planes. Dew.
As part of the deal, Boeing agrees to pay a fine of up to $487.2 million and spend $455 million to improve its safety and compliance practices during a three-year court-supervised probation period. was.
Relatives of the victims are demanding that Boeing and its executives be indicted for their loved ones' deaths and for evidence of wrongdoing presented at trial. They also claim that Boeing must pay up to $24.78 billion in connection with the crashes.
The Justice Department found in May that Boeing violated the terms of a 2021 agreement granting immunity from prosecution over the crashes. Prosecutors then decided to file criminal charges against Boeing and negotiate the current plea deal.
The decision comes after a door panel exploded on board an Alaska Airlines jet on January 5, exposing ongoing safety and quality issues at Boeing.
The judge's dissent centered primarily on the government's diversity and inclusion policy, which covers the selection of an independent monitor to oversee Boeing for three years.
Such policies are commonly known as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). DEI policy has become a flashpoint in America's culture wars, which refer to the conflict between liberal and conservative values.
Supporters argue that the policy combats unconscious bias, inequity, and discrimination in hiring, while opponents argue that it focuses on characteristics such as race and gender at the expense of core job qualifications. It is claimed that
“The plea agreement requires the parties to consider race when hiring an independent monitor,” O'Connor wrote in the ruling. “In a case of this magnitude, it is in the best interest of justice that the public be satisfied that the selection of this monitor was based solely on merit.”
O'Connor, who was appointed to the federal bench by then-Republican President George W. Bush in 2007, has challenged government policies, including rulings that found Obamacare unconstitutional in a decision that was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. He gained fame by ruling in favor of conservative litigants.
He previously defeated the Biden administration's efforts to prevent schools from discriminating against students based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
