California defeats Tesla's attempt to throw out racial discrimination lawsuit - Ars Technica
Skip to content
AI
Biz & IT
Cars
Culture
Gaming
Health
Policy
Science
Security
Space
Tech
Forum
Subscribe
Story text
Size
Small<br>Standard<br>Large
Width
Standard<br>Wide
Links
Standard<br>Orange
* Subscribers only
Learn more
Pin to story
Theme
Search
Sign In
Sign in dialog...
Text<br>settings
Story text
Size
Small<br>Standard<br>Large
Width
Standard<br>Wide
Links
Standard<br>Orange
* Subscribers only
Learn more
Minimize to nav
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.
Tesla evidence not enough to prevent trial
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.
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.”
Discrimination and retaliation claims
Borkon decided that there are triable issues of facts on whether Tesla knew there was a hostile work environment and on...