Case Explained: LANCE LOWELL LEWIS v. THE BOEING COMPANY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Boeing Company in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) retaliation claim brought by Lance Lowell Lewis. The court applied the burden-shifting framework established in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green*, requiring Lewis to demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation, which necessitates showing that he engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that a causal connection existed between the two. The court held that Lewis failed to establish the requisite causal connection because he could not prove the decision-making body, Boeing’s Employee Corrective Action Review Board (ECARB), was aware of his protected activities at the time it recommended termination. While Lewis filed an EEOC charge regarding age discrimination, there was no evidence the ECARB knew of this filing. Additionally, the court rejected Lewis’s contention that internal complaints he lodged against his supervisor constituted protected activity under the ADEA, noting those reports lacked any allegation of age discrimination. The court also declined to consider Lewis’s “cat’s paw” theory argument because it was raised for the first time on appeal and not preserved in the district court proceedings. Consequently, Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, rendering summary judgment appropriate as a matter of law.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.