The CRD alleged that “Black workers were relegated to labor-intensive jobs, segregated, and paid less than non-black workers” and that when they complained, they “faced retaliation in the form of harsh performance reviews, reprimands, and firings.” The agency accused Tesla of failing to stop racial harassment and discrimination when it was aware of the problem.
Tesla’s evidence is not enough to prevent a lawsuit
Supreme Court judge Peter Borkon said yesterday’s verdict At this stage of the proceedings, “the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves any doubt or uncertainty about the evidence in their favor.” Tesla, the defendant, is seeking a motion for summary judgment and must therefore present undisputed facts sufficient to dismiss the claims.
Allegations include unequal treatment in areas such as racial harassment, discriminatory assignments, pay inequality, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, discipline, promotion, termination, and constructive dismissal. Borkon rejected Tesla’s attempt to dismiss the allegations, saying the automaker had not provided indisputable evidence that would have shifted the burden of proof to the CRD.
Borko’s analysis focused mostly on allegations of harassment, discriminatory assignments, and retaliation. He wrote about harassment:
The evidence shows that “all of the 240 declarations submitted by the plaintiffs reported hearing the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and that “99 of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla reported hearing the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” That means at least 339 out of 12,000 Black workers (2.8%) have heard the n-word at work. Tesla’s evidence did not shift the burden to plaintiff CRD. First, CRD claims statewide prosecution, but Tesla’s evidence is limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s evidence appears to be a non-representative sample from the Tesla factory, so it cannot be extrapolated to the entire Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s evidence identifies the minimum number of Black employees who hear the n-word in the workplace, rather than the total number of Black employees who hear the n-word in the workplace.
According to Borko’s decision, Tesla argued that its written policies and procedures, training and orientation programs showed no pattern or practice of harassment, and that Tesla took prompt and appropriate actions in response to incidents of harassment. Borkon said he “does not believe the mere existence of a written policy is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that there was no harassment or discrimination.”
