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
© 2024 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 AllPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
Federal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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