Boeing Faces Negligence Suit Over Employee Child’s Birth Defects
A Washington appellate court ruled Boeing must face negligence claims over an employee's child's birth defects.
Why it matters: This decision could broaden employer liability for workplace exposures that harm workers' family members, shifting how corporations manage health and safety risks. Companies may need to reevaluate their duty of care policies for employee families.
- On May 18, 2026, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled Boeing can be sued for negligence in this case.
- Boeing argued it owed no duty of care to the child, Milo, since he was not conceived at the time of exposure.
- The panel rejected Boeing’s argument and held that practical concerns do not excuse a reasonable duty of care.
- The ruling affirms employers must exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to family members from workplace hazards.
Boeing will face negligence claims after a state appeals court held the aerospace giant could be liable for a worker’s child’s severe birth defects allegedly caused by workplace chemical exposure. The May 18, 2026 decision by the Washington Court of Appeals centers on allegations by Teela and Thomas Bauer, whose son Milo was born with permanent, disabling birth defects, including multiple congenital heart defects and other anomalies.
- Thomas Bauer worked as an electrical installer at Boeing’s Everett facility, where he was regularly exposed to volatile organic solvents and heavy metals by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact.
- The complaint alleges Bauer relied on Boeing’s superior knowledge regarding workplace hazards and on the company’s responsibility to inform and implement safety measures.
Boeing argued it owed no duty of care to Milo, as the child was not yet conceived when the exposure occurred. However, the court unanimously disagreed, with Judge Ian Birk writing: “The relevant inquiry is not whether a preconception duty can ever be owed in the employment context, but whether our standards support that Boeing owed Milo a duty of care — they do — and whether Milo was a foreseeable plaintiff — he was.”
Birk added that “if Boeing’s conduct involves an unreasonable risk of injury to workers’ children, the timeline bears little import to the existence of a duty.” The ruling clarifies that employers have an obligation to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm, not just to employees but also to their immediate family members, when workplace exposures are involved.
This precedent may prompt employers—and their counsel—to reexamine risk mitigation and health policies relating to chemical exposures and potential impacts on employees’ families.
By the numbers:
- May 18, 2026 — Date of Washington appellate court ruling
- Multiple congenital heart defects — Birth defects suffered by the child, Milo