KIM v. BOEING COMPANY. MICHAEL KIM, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.. Case No. C10-1850RSM. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge

This matter is before the Court for consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. #15. Plaintiff has opposed the motion, and the matter has been fully briefed. The Court deems oral argument on the motion unnecessary and, for the reasons set forth below, shall grant the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following factual recitation is based on facts set forth in plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff did not file a declaration stating facts in opposition to summary judgment. While he did file exhibits to support his opposition, these have not been properly authenticated and many are inadmissible.1 Except where indicated otherwise, the Court will deem the facts set forth in this section as undisputed for the purposes of resolving the summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff Michael Kim, who possesses a bachelor's degree in accounting, worked for defendant The Boeing Company ("Boeing") for nine years ending in the spring of 2009. During the last two and a half years, he was a Business Analyst for cost management in the "Supplier Management and Procurement" division of the Commercial Airplanes Group. His immediate supervisor was Jeffrey Okazaki, and his primary job responsibilities included consolidating cost data for the company's financial statements. Complaint, ¶¶ 8-11.

On December 20, 2006, plaintiff reported what he believed to be financial irregularities in Boeing's cost accounting, and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX")2 standards, to the company's Ethics Office. Id., ¶ 12. Boeing classified this report as "SOX Submittal # 20061220074023, and noted that plaintiff also reported that he was experiencing retaliation for raising these concerns. Id. The details of plaintiff's allegations, and Boeing's investigation, will be discussed further below.

In May, 2007, plaintiff made a second report of financial irregularities to his managers, Jeff Okazaki and Arsbaha Kahssai. Complaint, ¶ 29. The item of his concern was a cash payment of $8 million made by Boeing in May of 2002 to a supplier (and equity joint venture partner), which plaintiff claims was mischaracterized as a surcharge. Id. He alleges that these managers assured him that there was nothing irregular about the transaction of which he complained, and it did not require investigation.

Continued ... Read More: http://www.leagle.com