A US federal judge on Thursday rejected the guilty plea agreement concluded in July between the aircraft manufacturer Boeing and the United States government, intended to put an end to criminal proceedings linked to the crash of two 737 MAX 8s in 2018 and in 2019, which left 346 dead.
Texas Judge Reed O’Connor does not address the merits of the case in his twelve-page decision and focuses on the method of appointing an independent supervisor who, according to him, “wrongly marginalizes” the role of the court.
The magistrate also considers that the guarantees in terms of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) in the process of appointing this supervisor are “inappropriate and against the public interest”.
The judge, responsible for approving or rejecting the agreement without being able to amend it, ordered both parties to return to him within thirty days with their plans for the future.
As part of the agreement filed with the court in Fort Worth (Texas) on July 24, the American aeronautics giant undertook “to further strengthen (its) safety, quality and compliance programs”he explained at the time.
An independent monitor was to be appointed to ensure compliance with these commitments, with a three-year probationary period.
According to the agreement, it was up to the government – after a call for applications – to appoint and supervise this controller. Boeing was to be consulted – with the right to veto one of the six candidates proposed by the ministry – but not the court.
Referring to Boeing’s statements in court and its positions on DEI, Judge “worries” in its decision rendered Thursday that the aircraft manufacturer exercises its right of veto “in a discriminatory manner and with racial considerations”.
And he says to himself “skeptical” in the face of government assurances that the supervisor would be chosen “based solely on merit and talent”regretting that the July agreement does not define the terms ” diversity “ et « inclusion ».
This appointment had been requested by the victims’ families for years but they opposed the method of designation.
“The categorical rejection of the guilty plea agreement constitutes an important victory for the families”immediately reacted Paul Cassell, professor of law at the University of Utah and family lawyer in this criminal aspect, in a press release.
According to him, this rejection should provoke “an important renegotiation” of this agreement.
Asked by AFP, Boeing and the ministry did not react immediately.
Production issues
The guilty plea agreement came after prosecutors concluded that Boeing had violated an earlier agreement regarding the Lion Air crashes in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines in March 2019.
This so-called deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), dating from 2021 and lasting three years, required it to improve its compliance and ethics program.
The group had also paid 2.5 billion dollars – including a fine of 243.6 million – in exchange for immunity for its leaders against criminal prosecution.
But in January 2024, Boeing plunged back into crisis when an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 had to make an emergency landing after a fuselage panel detached in flight. The device was delivered in October.
This incident, which caused only a few minor injuries, followed several months of production quality problems and led, among other things, to a strengthening of Boeing’s supervision by the American aviation regulator (FAA). .
In July, the aircraft manufacturer and the US Department of Justice announced a second deferred prosecution agreement including, in addition to the independent supervisor, an additional fine of $243.6 million and a commitment to invest at least $455 million in programs compliance and security.
The group had agreed to plead guilty to the only charge contained in the 2021 DPA: having “knowingly, and with intent to commit fraud, conspired and agreed with others to commit fraud against the United States” during the 737 MAX certification process.
Around 7:45 p.m. GMT, Boeing shares fell 1.24% on the New York Stock Exchange.