Emad v. The Boeing Company, 2:14-cv-01233

Emad, an Egyptian-born Muslim who identifies as Arab-American and African-American, worked as an assembler/installer at Boeing beginning January 2012 and alleges repeated racial, national-origin, and religious epithets and insults by coworkers and supervisors.
Reported slurs included references such as “Ali-Baba terrorist,” “camel jockey,” and other Islamophobic and racial comments; coworkers allegedly made derogatory remarks and posed humiliating suggestions; Plaintiff alleges chlorine/bleach was put in his water bottle after he began reporting harassment.
Emad alleges he was denied a temporary team-lead promotion in August 2012 after training for it; a manager (Hall) allegedly said, “I’m not going to let that Ali-Baba terrorist be a Team Lead.”
Emad reported harassment to supervisors, HR, Boeing’s Equal Employment Office, and later filed an EEOC charge; he alleges Boeing’s investigation was inadequate, corrective measures ineffective, and harassment continued (including after his transfer).
Procedural posture: Boeing moved for summary judgment on all claims. Court denied summary judgment on disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims; granted summary judgment for Boeing on Emad’s intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims (duplicative of discrimination claims).

Issue	Emad's Argument	Boeing's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment (denial of temporary lead)	Denial was an adverse employment action based on racial/religious animus; manager called him an “Ali-Baba terrorist.”	Denial was not a material adverse action; decision due to process concerns, not discrimination.	DENIED summary judgment — factual dispute (adverse action and animus) for jury.
Hostile work environment (supervisors)	Frequent, consistent racist/anti-Muslim conduct by multiple supervisors created abusive environment.	Company had anti-harassment policy and investigated; supervisor conduct not severe/pervasive.	DENIED — genuine dispute whether supervisor harassment was severe/pervasive and imputable to Boeing.
Employer liability for coworker harassment	Boeing knew or should have known and failed to take adequate corrective action; harassment persisted.	Boeing investigated and issued corrective memoranda; transfer remedied the issue.	DENIED — factual disputes on notice and adequacy/effectiveness of remedies.
Retaliation (after complaints)	Increased harassment after reporting was materially adverse and could deter charging activity.	Post-complaint conduct was mere ostracism or trivial and not materially adverse.	DENIED — jury question whether harassment following complaints was materially adverse and retaliatory.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (legal framework for disparate treatment burden-shifting)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer vicarious liability and affirmative defense for supervisor harassment)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (definition of "supervisor" and tangible employment action)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard — materially adverse)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (effectiveness of employer remedial measures; complaint-procedure element)
Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792 (applying Title VII principles to § 1981 claims)