Blind employee alleges Boeing failed to provide accommodations

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, August 12, 2026

EVERETT — After Boeing terminated his employment, a former employee who is blind filed a complaint in July in the U.S. District Court in Seattle alleging the aerospace company failed to provide him proper accommodations.

Initially filed in Snohomish County Superior Court July 8, Boeing moved to bring the case to the federal district court, where it was filed July 31.

Before beginning work at Boeing, the man worked as a machinist producing parts for Boeing at The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., an organization that employs and trains people who are blind.

“With appropriate accommodations in place, he was able to achieve a level of precision that exceeded the requirements at Boeing,” the complaint said.

The Lighthouse for the Blind has been manufacturing airplane parts for Boeing since it began the partnership in 1952, according to the organization’s website.

He was excited, the complaint said, when on Sept. 23, 2023, Boeing offered him a machinist position in Everett following an interview at a Boeing Job Fair, according to court documents. As someone who is blind with partial eyesight, he was assisted during the interview by his wife and a white cane.

Five days later, the offer, sent over email, was allegedly changed to a Composite Fabricator C position, court documents said. Despite attempts to retain the initial offer, he accepted the new role.

Boeing declined to comment Monday.

By Oct. 19, 2023, he had completed the necessary paperwork and tests, including a health questionnaire disclosing his blindness, court documents said. When a Boeing representative asked about accommodations, he stated he was unsure what exactly he needed until he saw the work environment, but would likely need a closed-circuit television device.

A CCTV device uses a video camera to display a magnified image onto a screen or monitor.

As he waited for a start date, Boeing expressed safety concerns, to which he responded that he had spent nearly 10 years doing machinist work with no injuries, court documents said.

During orientation on Jan. 19, 2024, he needed help during a computer-based task from a co-worker who read the screen aloud to him. The complaint claims he could not get help from Boeing’s accommodations team, despite repeated requests.

The complaint claims he began to feel ill each day due to stress that “his instructor, and some others, resented his presence.”

On Jan. 23, 2024, with the help of his coworker and a human resources employee, he finished his tasks on time, court documents said. He reportedly heard the human resources employee expressing confusion about the lack of accommodations and noted past accommodations provided to deaf employees.

The next day, Boeing’s accommodations team called him into a meeting where they told him it was unsafe for him to remain at the plant, court documents said. When he offered to keep working while accommodations were implemented and suggested a blind-access software option, Boeing officials reportedly told him they had to follow their own processes.

The complaint claims that Boeing escorted him off the property. The human resource employee took him to a nearby bus stop but was not permitted to take him home, court documents allege.

During three subsequent meetings spanning January to March of 2024, Boeing representatives allegedly suggested he had attempted to hide his blindness despite medical forms documenting his disability, court documents said. Boeing representatives also cited moving vehicles, overhead cranes and forklifts as safety concerns.

In the meantime, he returned to The Lighthouse for the Blind, where an official reportedly recalled an instance years earlier where a Boeing manager allegedly said: “they did not want ‘[expletive] blind people’ working for them,” court documents said.

On Feb. 16, 2025, his doctor cleared him for work at Boeing.

In the last meeting regarding the composite fabricator position on April 11, 2024, a representative told him the job required driving a vehicle. This requirement was reportedly not mentioned previously, court documents said.

Despite attempts to locate another position, his application for a safety position was rejected due to the requirement to drive a vehicle, court documents said.

No alternative position was provided, and on July 18, 2024, he learned Boeing was closing his file, and no appeal process was available, court documents said. At this time, he had been on unpaid leave for six months.

The complaint claims that information revealed during a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation, which showed one person using an automated guided vehicle while another assisted, undermined the claim that operating these vehicles was an essential function of the composite fabricator position.

In its response filed Friday, Boeing claimed that it had known about his condition since receiving his accommodation request and that he was assisted by a woman and using a white cane during the hiring event.

Boeing claimed representatives had extended, for the first time, an offer for the composite fabricator position on Sept. 28, 2023, following the interview at a hiring event five days earlier.

The company denied that it “escorted” the man off the property, claiming it attempted to arrange transport, but he said that “he probably could use public transportation,” court documents said.

Boeing then offered participation in the company’s reassignment process, which lasted 60 days, court documents said. After Boeing identified nine positions, the employee reportedly expressed interest in one, a safety specialist position. A hiring manager informed representatives that the position required the ability to drive vehicles.

To navigate the workplace safely, the employee would need assistance from a sighted employee, which Boeing argued is not a reasonable accommodation, court documents said.

The complaint seeks financial compensation along with any relief the court deems equitable. In response, Boeing requested the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, alongside compensation for legal expenses and other relief the court deems equitable.

Jenna Millikan: 425-339-3035; jenna.millikan@heraldnet.com; X: @JennaMillikan