Plaintiff class action representatives alleged that from 1994-2000 their employer paid African- American salaried employees lower wages based on race.? ?The trial court dismissed their action holding that they had no standing to challenge Boeing?s ?compensation? practices ?for ?that ?period and that their claims were barred by the statute of limitation.? ?The complicated procedural history of the ?case ?included ?Ninth ?Circuit ?affirmance ?of ?a?certified settlement class which alleged other forms of discrimination such as denial of promotion, but rejection of the Consent Decree approved by the trial court.? ?On remand, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege discrimination in compensation.?? The trial court granted? summary? judgment? for? Boeing,? ruling that the compensation claim for the period up to?2000 was barred by section 1981?s four year statute of limitations. ?Boeing prevailed at a trial on Plaintiff?s other discrimination claims.? ?For the first time, on appeal, Boeing challenged the standing of the class representatives to represent the class on the pre-2001 compensation claim because in response to summary judgment they submitted affidavits only of other class members. The Court rejected this contention noting that since Boeing did not raise the issue below ?Plaintiffs were never forced to come forward with ?specific facts? to support their standing.? Similarly, the Court rejected Boeing?s contention that the plaintiffs no longer had standing.

Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit rejected all four of Plaintiffs? arguments that the statute of limitations did not bar their compensation claim, holding:???? ?(1)? ?that? ?their? ?original?? complaint alleging discrimination in the ?terms of employment? was insufficient to encompass compensation discrimination; (2) that the compensation allegations in their amended complaint did not relate back because ?there is no common core of operative facts between the compensation discrimination claim and the promotion discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims;? (3) that Boeing is not judicially estopped for taking the position that the Consent Decree released plaintiffs? compensation claims because Boeing was not precluded from seeking a release broader than the pleadings and in any event the Decree was rejected depriving Boeing of any unfair advantage; and (4) that the limitations period was not tolled when the trial court approved the Consent Decree that the Ninth Circuit rejected because by its own terms the Decree was not in effect while on appeal and because tolling as a?result of certification does not toll the statute as to unasserted claims. ?Finally, the Court dismissed as moot issues about whether the class was properly certified or decertified.?? Williams v. The Boeing Company, 517 F.3d 1120 (9th? Cir. 2008) (Beezer, Tashima, Tallman)