• Three employees of Boeing’s South Carolina assembly plant sought to intervene in the case, and 16 state attorney generals filed an amicus brief opposing the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing. On June 23, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Clifford H. Anderson rejected Boeing’s attempt to subpoena a wide range of documents that would reveal the identity of NLRB witnesses and the factual basis of the unfair practice complaint against Boeing. On June 30, ALJ Anderson denied Boeing’s motion to dismiss the NLRB complaint, stating that a trial would be necessary to develop a full record. ALJ Anderson also ruled that it was too early in the case to strike any proposed remedies – such as the NLRB’s request that Boeing source the new 787 work in the Seattle area—adding that the proposed remedies were supported by the NLRB’s policies. Separately, legislation, the Job Protection Act (S. 964 and H.R. 1976), aimed at the NLRB’s complaint has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representative and the Senate. The Job Protection Act is aimed at preserving federal law’s existing protections of state right-to-work laws. The bill would block the NLRB from moving forward with the case against Boeing, or taking similar action against other companies.