Court of Appeals Rules Employers May Be Liable for Harm to Unborn Children
A Washington State Court of Appeals decision has established that employers may be held accountable for injuries sustained by employees’ future children due to workplace chemical exposures, opening the door for broader legal claims in reproductive health cases.
In a unanimous ruling issued Tuesday, Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed a King County Superior Court order allowing a lawsuit against The Boeing Company to proceed. The case centers on a Sequim-based couple, Teela and Thomas Bauer, who sued on behalf of their son, Milo, born in 2017 with significant, lifelong health impairments.
Thomas has worked as an electrical installer at Boeing’s Everett facility since 2011. Court records indicate he was regularly exposed to a blend of industrial solvents and heavy metals during his tenure. According to the complaint, these substances are known to disrupt reproductive function, and the Baurers contend this exposure contributed to conception difficulties and ultimately led to Milo’s birth defects.
Milo was diagnosed with multiple congenital conditions, including a ventricular septal defect, spinal cord tethering, and structural heart abnormalities. The lawsuit alleges Boeing’s internal research—dating back to the 1980s—identified paternal chemical exposure as a potential source of developmental harm, yet the company did not implement warning systems or protective protocols for employees planning families.
Boeing had sought dismissal of the suit, contending that Washington’s legal framework does not impose a duty on employers to guard against risks to offspring yet to be conceived. The company warned such a ruling could spur a wave of related litigation and prompt employers to inquire into employees’ reproductive plans.
Judge Ian Birk, writing for the appellate panel, rejected those concerns. The court held that the relevant legal standard is not timing of conception but whether harm to future children is reasonably foreseeable. Drawing on past decisions involving “take-home” asbestos exposure, the panel concluded that employers can be expected to anticipate effects on employees’ eventual children when workplace hazards pose a demonstrable risk.
“If Boeing’s conduct involves an unreasonable risk of injury to workers’ children, the timeline bears little import to the existence of a duty,” Birk stated.
The ruling also clarified how the Washington Industrial Insurance Act applies in cases involving offspring. Boeing had argued that Milo’s injuries were derivative of his father’s occupational illness and thus protected under the state’s no-fault workers’ compensation system.
The appellate court disagreed, citing Washington Supreme Court precedent recognizing in utero injuries as distinct from the worker’s own condition. The panel concluded that Milo’s impairments constitute separate and independent injuries, not merely ancillary to his father’s workplace exposure.
With both legal and policy considerations weighed, the court determined that employers need only provide full disclosure of potential reproductive risks and act with reasonable diligence to safeguard against foreseeable harm to future generations.
The court acknowledged a causal link between the child's birth defects and the father's reproductive harm, yet it classified the two as "separate and distinct injuries." The ruling stated that the child's injuries are personal to him and are not derivative of the father's condition. Consequently, the exclusivity provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act do not shield the defendant from the child's lawsuit.
The decision upheld Judge Cindi Port’s refusal to dismiss the case. As a result, the negligence lawsuit against Boeing can proceed toward trial.