California defeats Tesla’s attempt to remove racial discrimination lawsuit

The CRD stated that “Black workers were subjected to heavy workloads, discrimination, and lower wages than non-Blacks,” and that they were “retaliated against with excessive harassment, reprimands, and dismissals” when they complained. The agency accused Tesla of failing to prevent harassment and discrimination despite being aware of the problem.

Tesla’s evidence is not enough to avoid being tried

Supreme Court Justice Peter Borkon said yesterday’s decision that at this stage of the trial, “the court views the evidence in favor of the plaintiff and resolves any doubt or ambiguity in their favor.” Tesla, the plaintiff, is seeking summary judgment and, as such, must present undisputed facts sufficient to defeat the claim.

The violations include harassment based on race, discriminatory practices, wage inequality, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and inequality in areas such as punishment, promotion, firing, and constructive discharge. Borkon rejected Tesla’s attempt to release the allegations, saying the carmaker did not provide any compelling evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the CRD.

Borkon’s analysis was extensive on allegations of harassment, discriminatory practices, and retaliation. Regarding the persecution, he wrote:

The testimony shows that “Of the 240 notifications provided by the plaintiffs, all said they heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and “Of the 228 notifications Tesla provided, 99 heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” This shows that out of 12,000 black workers at least 339 (2.8%) heard the n-word at work. Tesla’s testimony did not change the burden on the CRD plaintiff. First, CRD’s claims allege abuse across the country but Tesla’s evidence appears to be limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s testimony appears to be unrepresentative from the Tesla factory, so it cannot be extrapolated to the entire Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s testimony refers to a lower number of black workers who heard the n-word at work than the number of black workers who heard the n-word at work.

According to Borkon’s decision, Tesla said that its written policies and procedures as well as its training and management programs show that there was no pattern or behavior of harassment, and that Tesla acted quickly and appropriately in response to incidents of harassment. Borkon said he is “not convinced that the existence of written policies alone is sufficient to establish a prima facie case that there was no harassment or discrimination.”