California defeats Tesla's attempt to throw out racial discrimination lawsuit - Ars Technica

Overview

California defeats Tesla’s attempt to throw out racial discrimination lawsuit

California civil rights agency hails win over Tesla, anticipates trial in July.

Details

Over four years after a California agency sued Tesla over an alleged pattern of racial discrimination, a judge has dismissed Tesla’s motion to throw out the lawsuit.

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) said today that the Alameda County Superior Court order clears a path for the case to go to trial, which is currently scheduled for July 20. Tesla “employment practices remain rooted in some of the ugliest relics of the past,” CRD Director Kevin Kish said. “Black workers are paid less for their work. They are subjected to racist slurs. They face threats of being fired for speaking out… We look forward to having our day in court to hold Tesla accountable and to protect the rights of workers in our state.”

The lawsuit alleges widespread discrimination, especially at Tesla’s Fremont factory, and seeks financial damages and injunctive relief. At trial, the case may include claims of discrimination going back to June 2018. The judge partially granted Tesla’s request to block claims under the statute of limitations, but only for incidents that happened before June 18, 2018.

The CRD sued Tesla in March 2022 after investigating for three years. The suit alleged “harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, as well as other claims, against the company’s Black employees,” the CRD said today. “These allegations included the pervasive use of racial slurs, often in the presence of, or even by, supervisors and managers. The use of the n-word was allegedly especially pervasive at the Fremont factory, which Tesla workers, supervisors, and management alike referred to as the ‘plantation,’ with Black workers as ‘slaves.’”

The CRD alleged that “Black workers were relegated to labor-intensive jobs, segregated, and paid less than non-Black workers,” and “faced retaliation in the form of overly harsh performance reviews, reprimands, and termination” when they complained. The agency accused Tesla of failing to stop the racial harassment and discrimination despite knowing about the problem.

Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon said in yesterday’s ruling that at this stage of the proceeding, “the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in their favor.” Tesla, the defendant, is seeking a motion for summary judgment and, as such, must submit undisputed facts that are sufficient to defeat the claims.

The allegations include racial harassment, discriminatory assignments, pay inequality, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and unequal treatment in areas including discipline, promotions, firings, and constructive discharges. Borkon denied Tesla’s attempt to throw out the claims, saying the carmaker did not submit undisputed evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the CRD.

Borkon’s analysis was most extensive on the claims of harassment, discriminatory assignments, and retaliation. On harassment, he wrote:

The evidence indicates that “Of the 240 declarations submitted by plaintiffs, all stated that they heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and “Of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla, 99 heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” That suggests that out of 12,000 Black workers at least 339 (2.8%) heard the n-word at work. Tesla’s evidence did not shift the burden to plaintiff CRD. First, CRD’s claims alleges harassment state-wide but Tesla’s evidence appears to be limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s evidence appears to be a non-representative sample from the Tesla factory, so it cannot reasonably be extrapolated to the whole Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s evidence defines the minimum number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work rather than the total number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work.

The evidence indicates that “Of the 240 declarations submitted by plaintiffs, all stated that they heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and “Of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla, 99 heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” That suggests that out of 12,000 Black workers at least 339 (2.8%) heard the n-word at work. Tesla’s evidence did not shift the burden to plaintiff CRD. First, CRD’s claims alleges harassment state-wide but Tesla’s evidence appears to be limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s evidence appears to be a non-representative sample from the Tesla factory, so it cannot reasonably be extrapolated to the whole Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s evidence defines the minimum number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work rather than the total number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work.

According to Borkon’s ruling, Tesla asserted that its written policies and procedures and its training and orientation programs show there was no pattern or practice of harassment, and that Tesla took immediate and appropriate action in response to incidents of harassment. Borkon said he “is not persuaded that the existence of written policies alone is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that there was no harassment or discrimination.”

Borkon decided that there are triable issues of facts on whether Tesla knew there was a hostile work environment and on whether Tesla took immediate and appropriate action. He said that Tesla is incorrect to argue that the California agency must present evidence that people acting in concert created a pattern or practice of race harassment.

“What is relevant is whether there was a pattern or practice of race harassment. Assuming there was such a pattern or practice at Tesla (whether by isolated individuals or by persons acting in concert), then the issue turns to whether Tesla was on notice and took immediate and appropriate action,” he wrote.

On the allegation of discriminatory assignments, Tesla claimed that the state agency has no evidence to prove discrimination in hiring, promotion, assignment, and compensation practices. But according to the judge, “Tesla’s assertion that CRD has no evidence is not undisputed evidence that CRD cannot prove an element of the claim,” and “Tesla did not present its own expert statistical testimony with a prima facie showing that there was no discrimination.”

Tesla provided data on the race of employees, but “Tesla provides no statistical information about the applicant pool or about pay, promotions, assignments, discipline, termination, or other matters,” Borkon wrote.

Tesla disputed retaliation claims by citing evidence from a related action lawsuit, Vaughn v. Tesla. The company said that “only 3 percent of witnesses [who provided declarations in Vaughn] allege any adverse employment action taken against persons engaged in protected activity.”

Tesla did not provide “undisputed evidence that there was no pattern or practice of retaliation,” Borkon wrote. Tesla provided a non-representative sample of declarations, which does not show “that there was no California-wide pattern or practice of retaliation,” the ruling said.

The CRD told the court that “numerous Vaughn declarants set forth that they were subjected to adverse employment actions following reports of harassment or discrimination.” According to Borkon’s ruling, “Tesla did not present evidence that it had legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons for the allegedly retaliatory employment decisions.”

We contacted Tesla today and will update this article if it responds.

The Vaughn v. Tesla case is also moving ahead at Alameda County Superior Court, with the trial currently scheduled for June 1. The case originally involved a certified class of 6,000 Black workers, but the class was decertified last year when Borkon ruled that it “could not move forward as a class action because many of the 200 workers chosen at random to testify ahead of a trial scheduled for 2026 were unwilling to do so,” Reuters reported at the time.

In another racial discrimination case against Tesla, former factory worker Owen Diaz won a

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla over similar discrimination claims during the Biden administration. The case is still pending and moving through discovery.

1.          Millions of AI agents imperiled by critical vulnerability in open source package
   

2.          Amazing interior, controversial exterior: Ferrari's first electric car
   

3.          Musk says US military suicide drones used Starlink in violation of Space X rules
   

4.          Analyst on China's spent rocket stages: "Things only continue to get worse"
   

5.          Is Peter Thiel the target of Pope Leo's Gandalf quote? An investigation.
   

Ars Technica has been separating the signal from the noise for over 25 years. With our unique combination of technical savvy and wide-ranging interest in the technological arts and sciences, Ars is the trusted source in a sea of information. After all, you don’t need to know everything, only what’s important.

Key Takeaways

• California defeats Tesla’s attempt to throw out racial discrimination lawsuit

• California civil rights agency hails win over Tesla, anticipates trial in July

• Over four years after a California agency sued Tesla over an alleged pattern of racial discrimination, a judge has dismissed Tesla’s motion to throw out the lawsuit

• The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) said today that the Alameda County Superior Court order clears a path for the case to go to trial, which is currently scheduled for July 20

• The lawsuit alleges widespread discrimination, especially at Tesla’s Fremont factory, and seeks financial damages and injunctive relief