Full Breakdown
Boeing Faces Disability Discrimination Lawsuit from Blind Machinist
8/19/2026, 12:02:31 AM
Lawsuit Overview
John Ott, a 63-year-old former police officer who is blind from retinitis pigmentosa, filed a federal lawsuit in Seattle on July 31, 2024 alleging wrongful termination, disability discrimination and retaliation by Boeing. Ott says the company offered him a machinist position at its Everett plant in late September 2023, then changed the role to “composite fabricator.” He accepted the new title, but Boeing later cited “safety concerns” and required ten years of injury-free machinist experience. The company offered a start date of January 19, 2024 and placed Ott on unpaid leave while an “interactive process” was purportedly completed. Boeing terminated his employment on July 18, 2024, according to court documents. Ott’s attorney, Christopher Stockwell, says the suit seeks damages and possible reinstatement.
Background
Ott’s vision deteriorated in his 30s due to the rare genetic disease retinitis pigmentosa. Since 2014 he has worked as a machinist for the Lighthouse for the Blind, a Seattle nonprofit that trains and employs people with disabilities and supplies parts to Boeing. At a job fair he attended with his wife, Lindsay Ott, he used a white cane and disclosed his blindness on a health questionnaire. During the hiring process he requested a closed-circuit-television (CCTV) device to read work orders; the request was never fulfilled.
Boeing’s Official Response
Boeing contends it acted in “good faith” throughout the hiring process and attempted to accommodate Ott without creating an undue hardship. The company notes it identified nine potential positions for him during a 60-day reassignment effort, but Ott expressed interest only in a safety-specialist role that required vehicle operation. Boeing maintains that even with the requested CCTV device, Ott could not perform the essential functions of the composite-fabricator job. The filing includes the following statements:
- “When plaintiff submitted his request for accommodation, Boeing became aware that plaintiff had been diagnosed with bilateral retinitis pigmentosa,” — Boeing, judge
- “After determining that a leave of absence was appropriate for plaintiff until the interactive process could be completed, Boeing sought to arrange transportation for plaintiff to return home,” — Boeing, judge
- “Plaintiff stated he probably could use public transportation.” — Boeing, judge
Plaintiff’s Claims
Ott alleges that Boeing employees were “annoyed” and “offended” by his presence, that he was removed from the plant after four days of orientation, and that a senior manager had previously said the company did not want “f***ing blind people” working there. He says the lack of accommodations caused daily physical illness and that the company’s safety concerns were a pretext for discrimination. After his termination, Ott returned to the Lighthouse for the Blind and completed an 8,000-hour Machinist Apprenticeship, describing a Boeing job as “a win-win” for higher pay, better benefits and a shorter commute.
Potential Implications
If the jury finds in Ott’s favor, Boeing could be ordered to provide equitable relief such as reinstatement or back pay, and the case may prompt broader scrutiny of the aerospace manufacturer’s disability-accommodation practices under federal anti-discrimination law. The lawsuit also highlights challenges faced by blind workers seeking employment in high-safety-risk environments.
