Tesla Employees Suing Over 'Jim Crow Era' Workplace Seek Sanctions
The workers assert that "in a staggering show of gamesmanship and discovery abuse," Tesla is skirting a court order demanding the auto company turn over fellow employees' names and contact information.
January 14, 2020 at 04:22 PM
4 minute read
Tesla employees suing the automaker for allegedly fostering a racist factory work environment are now also pursuing sanctions against the car company.
In asking for sanctions, the workers allege Tesla and its Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton counsel have failed to comply with a court order to release the names and contact information of their co-workers who could potentially speak to the alleged racist culture at the Fremont, California, factory.
The motion for sanctions claims Tesla has knowledge of and produces employees' contact information when it's favorable, such as at depositions for plaintiff Demetric Di-az, whose father, Owen, also worked at the factory and is named in the suit. However, it objected to the workers' discovery request for similar information on the grounds of "vagueness, overbreadth, third-party privacy rights, relevance, and proportionality," according to the motion filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs' counsel from California Civil Rights Law Group in San Anselmo, California, and Los Angeles' Alexander Krakow + Glick contend they narrowed the scope of the request in response, but Tesla claimed it had no new names to hand over.
"In a staggering show of gamesmanship and discovery abuse that violates both the Federal Rules and the Court's Oct. 3 order, Tesla now refuses to produce these employees' names and contact information to plaintiffs," they wrote in the filing for the case, which is set to go to trial May 11.
Di-az, his father, and former plant elevator operator Lamar Patterson allege that Tesla created a "Jim Crow era" work environment where they were subject to racial slurs on a daily basis, according to the complaint for damages filed in December 2018. Staffing companies Citistaff Solutions Inc., West Valley Staffing Group and Chartwell Staffing Services are also defendants in the case due to their alleged role as joint employers.
The Tesla factory workers are asking Judge William Orrick III, who is overseeing the case, to sanction the company with attorney fees and costs totaling $7,240, and preclude witnesses "Tesla improperly refused to identify in discovery," according to the motion.
Plaintiffs allege that they waited a month after Orrick ordered Tesla to share "information about known individuals," but told the company it need not go on "a wild goose chase to uncover the names of individuals about whom it is not aware" on Oct. 3.
During an email exchange, the workers' lawyers wrote in the motion that Tesla's attorneys reported they hadn't unearthed any individuals that they weren't already aware of and said plaintiffs' request was a "fishing expedition."
"Tesla's behavior throughout the parties' extensive meet and confer process has been a textbook case of bad-faith discovery abuse," the attorneys write. "Tesla was unequivocally aware of the names of numerous individuals who indisputably worked with or around plaintiffs, yet it failed to produce these individuals' contact information—first in response to Plaintiff's original discovery requests, and again in response to the court's October 3, 2019 order."
The California Civil Rights Law Group's Larry Organ said Tesla released five names, some with incomplete contact information, after debating the issue for nearly 10 months. Organ said his team is asking for sanctions because Tesla clearly believes it's above the law.
"It's clear they don't want us to get in touch with people, because presumably these people might help their case," he said. "This is an important civil rights case, and I think this dispute highlights the fact that getting information in these kinds of cases is difficult. And when you have a petulant opponent such as Tesla, it's even more difficult."
Tesla and its counsel, which includes Sheppard Mullin's Tracey Kennedy in Los Angeles and Patricia Jeng and Reanne Swafford-Harris in San Francisco, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs' legal team also includes the California Civil Rights Law Group's Navruz Avloni and Cimone Nunley, as well as J. Bernard Alexander of Alexander Krakow.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShareholder Democracy? The Chatter Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250