The CRD alleged that “Black workers were pushed into labor-intensive jobs, segregated, and paid less than non-Black workers,” and faced retaliation in the form of “extremely harsh performance reviews, reprimands, and dismissal” when they complained. The agency accused Tesla of failing to prevent racial harassment and discrimination despite knowing about the problem.
Tesla’s evidence is not enough to stop the trial
Superior Court Judge Peter Borkan said in yesterday’s ruling that at this stage of the proceedings, “the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and resolves any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in their favor.” The defendant, Tesla, is seeking a motion for summary judgment and thus, must present undisputed facts that are sufficient to defeat the claims.
The allegations include racial harassment, discriminatory practices, pay disparity, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and unequal treatment in areas including discipline, promotion, termination, and constructive discharge. Borkon denied Tesla’s attempt to refute the claims and said the carmaker has not presented indisputable evidence that would shift the burden of proof to CRD.
Borkon’s analysis was the most comprehensive on claims of harassment, discriminatory assignment, and retaliation. On persecution he wrote:
Evidence indicates that “of the 240 declarations submitted by plaintiffs, all said they heard the N-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and “out of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla, 99 said they heard the N-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” This shows that at least 339 out of 12,000 black workers (2.8%) heard the N-word at work. Tesla’s evidence did not burden plaintiff CRD. First, CRD’s claims allege statewide harassment but Tesla’s evidence appears to be limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s evidence appears to be a non-representative sample of Tesla factories, so it cannot reasonably be applied to the entire Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s evidence defines a minimum number of Black workers who hear the N-word at work, rather than the total number of Black workers who hear the N-word at work.
According to Borkon’s decision, Tesla asserted that its written policies and procedures and its training and orientation programs showed there was no pattern or practice of harassment, and that Tesla took immediate and appropriate action in response to the harassment incidents. Borkon said he “does not agree that the mere existence of written policies is sufficient to prove prima facie that no harassment or discrimination occurred.”
<a href