Judge Rejects Boeings Plea Deal in 737 Max Case
A U.S. federal judge has rejected Boeing’s proposed plea agreement to resolve a criminal fraud charge connected to two fatal crashes of its 737 Max aircraft. The decision, announced on Thursday, raises questions about the role that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies may play in selecting an independent monitor to oversee Boeing’s compliance going forward.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, presiding in the Northern District of Texas, expressed concern that the Department of Justice (DOJ) might consider race or other DEI-related factors when appointing a government-approved monitor. This monitor is a key element of the plea deal, intended to ensure Boeing’s adherence to safety and regulatory standards after the crashes of a Lion Air flight in October 2018 and an Ethiopian Airlines flight in March 2019, which together claimed 346 lives.
In his ruling, Judge O’Connor emphasized the importance of the public’s confidence in the selection process. “The Court is not convinced that the Government will not choose a monitor without race-based considerations,” he wrote, noting that such a scenario could undermine trust in the outcome. The judge underscored that any monitor chosen should be selected solely on merit and competency, free from any perceived discriminatory practices.
Boeing had reached this plea agreement over the summer after the DOJ alleged the company violated the terms of an earlier settlement. The new deal would have seen Boeing plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by misleading regulators about a flight-control system on the 737 Max. The system, implicated in both deadly crashes, prompted widespread scrutiny of Boeing’s safety culture, engineering processes, and transparency with federal regulators.
Under the now-rejected deal, Boeing was poised to face a fine of up to $487.2 million. However, the DOJ had recommended crediting Boeing with half the amount it previously paid under an older agreement, effectively reducing the fine to $243.6 million. The arrangement would have allowed Boeing to avoid a lengthy trial at a critical time for the manufacturer’s operational recovery and efforts to restore trust with the flying public.
Family members of crash victims have been vocal in their criticism of earlier agreements, calling them too lenient. They argued for greater input into the monitor selection process, hoping to ensure that the conditions imposed on Boeing adequately reflect the severity of the company’s failings. Erin Applebaum, an attorney representing one victim’s family, hailed the judge’s decision, stating that it opens the door for a renegotiation of the terms and “real accountability” for Boeing’s actions.
The DOJ is currently reviewing the judge’s decision, and Boeing has not yet provided comment. The court has given both the DOJ and Boeing 30 days to determine how to proceed. It remains unclear what steps the DOJ may take next, whether that involves adjusting its policies, revising the plea agreement, or pursuing a different approach to ensure that the chosen monitor is selected solely based on qualifications, independent of any DEI considerations.
Related News : https://airguide.info/?s=Boeing+737+max
Sources: AirGuide Business airguide.info, bing.com, cnbc.com