The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment in favor of The Boeing Company in a whistleblower retaliation case brought by former employee Christopher Veto, according to a February 6, 2026 memorandum decision.
The appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling in *Veto v. The Boeing Company*, rejecting Veto's claims under California Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 6310, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting workplace violations. The court also affirmed dismissal of Veto's California common law wrongful termination claim.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Lee, Koh, and De Alba, unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The court issued an unpublished memorandum disposition, indicating the ruling establishes no new legal precedent under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
"As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here," the court wrote in its brief decision. The appeals court applied de novo review to the district court's summary judgment decision, citing *Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc.* (9th Cir. 2021) for the standard requiring courts to view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge David O. Carter. Veto filed the lawsuit as case number 8:24-cv-00509-DOC-KES, suggesting the complaint was filed in 2024. The district court granted summary judgment to Boeing, prompting Veto's appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
California Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who disclose information about violations of state or federal statutes, rules, or regulations to government or law enforcement agencies. The statute also protects employees who refuse to participate in activities that would violate laws.
Section 6310 of the California Labor Code specifically addresses workplace safety retaliation, prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees who file safety complaints with Cal/OSHA or other agencies, or who participate in workplace safety proceedings.
The wrongful termination claim under California common law typically allows employees to sue when their firing violates public policy, even in at-will employment situations. Such claims often arise when employees are terminated for activities protected by state whistleblower statutes.
While the court's memorandum does not detail the specific allegations or evidence in the case, the summary judgment ruling suggests the district court found insufficient evidence to support Veto's retaliation claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute exists regarding material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The appeals court's decision to hear the case without oral argument, submitted February 3, 2026, reflects the panel's view that the legal issues were sufficiently clear from the briefs and record. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) allows courts to dispense with oral argument when the appeal is frivolous, dispositive motions have been filed, or the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs.
Boeing has faced numerous employment-related lawsuits in recent years, including whistleblower claims from employees alleging retaliation for reporting safety concerns. The aerospace manufacturer has been under increased scrutiny from federal regulators and Congress following safety incidents involving its aircraft.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction in this appeal stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants federal appeals courts jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts. The appeals court's affirmance means Veto's claims have been definitively rejected at the federal level.
For Boeing, the victory provides continued protection from employee retaliation claims that fail to meet the evidentiary standards required under California labor law. The company successfully demonstrated to both the district court and appeals court that Veto's allegations lacked sufficient factual support to proceed to trial.
The memorandum disposition format indicates the Ninth Circuit viewed this as a routine employment case without novel legal questions requiring published precedential guidance. Such decisions typically involve straightforward application of established legal principles to particular factual circumstances.
Veto's legal options are now limited. He could petition the Ninth Circuit for rehearing or rehearing en banc, though such motions are rarely granted. Alternatively, he could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, but the high court accepts very few employment cases for review.
The case serves as a reminder that whistleblower protection statutes require substantial evidence of protected activity and retaliatory conduct. Employers like Boeing who face such claims can prevail by demonstrating legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons for employment decisions.
The ruling also reflects the federal judiciary's approach to employment disputes involving major corporations, where courts carefully scrutinize retaliation claims to ensure they meet established legal standards before allowing cases to proceed to costly jury trials.