Page 1
ROBERTA STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA)
MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA)
JAMES H. BAKER JR, SBN 291836 (CA)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs.
TESLA, INC.
Defendant.
Case No.: 4:23-cv-4984
COMPLAINT—TITLE VII
• Race Harassment ) ) • Retaliation
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices based on race (Black)
and to provide appropriate relief to aggrieved individuals who have been adversely affected by
such practices. As set forth with greater particularity below, Plaintiff United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (Plaintiff or Commission) alleges that since May 29,
Page 2
2015, Defendant Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has subjected Black employees at its manufacturing facilities
in Fremont, California (Fremont Factory) to severe or pervasive racial harassment and created
and maintained a hostile work environment because of their race, in a continuing violation of
Title VII. The Commission also alleges that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Black
employees who opposed actions they perceived to constitute unlawful employment
discrimination, also in violation of Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,
1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (Title
VII) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2.
The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being
committed at Tesla’s manufacturing facilities in Fremont, California, and within the jurisdiction
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
3.
This action is appropriate for assignment to the Oakland Division or San
Francisco Division of this Court because the unlawful employment practices alleged were
committed in Alameda County, which is in the jurisdiction of the Oakland Division.
PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United
States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII.
The Commission is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of
Title VII. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
5.
Tesla is a company in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling
electric vehicles in its facilities in Fremont, California.
6.
At all relevant times, Tesla, has been a Delaware corporation that has
continuously been doing business in the state of California, including within Alameda County. 7.
At all relevant times, Tesla has continuously been an employer engaged in an
Page 3
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
8.
At all relevant times, Tesla has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
9.
More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Commissioner
Charlotte A. Burrows, now Chair, of the EEOC filed a charge of discrimination with the
Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Tesla (Charge of Discrimination).
10.
On June 1, 2022, the Commission issued to Tesla a Letter of Determination
finding reasonable cause to believe that Tesla has from May 29, 2015, to the present, violated
Title VII by subjecting Black employees who worked at its Fremont, California, facilities to a
hostile work environment and by retaliating against Black employees who engaged in protected
activity.
11.
The Commission invited Tesla to join with the Commission in informal methods
of conciliation to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practices and provide
appropriate relief.
12.
opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of Determination. 13.
The Commission was unable to secure from Tesla a conciliation agreement
acceptable to the Commission.
14.
On June 22, 2023, the Commission issued to Tesla a Notice of Failure of
Conciliation.
15.
All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
The Commission engaged in communications with Tesla to provide Tesla the
16.
Since at least May 2015, and continuing through the present (Relevant Period),
Tesla has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a)
of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a), by engaging and continuing to engage in
discrimination against Black employees at the Fremont Factory by subjecting them to severe or
pervasive racial harassment and by creating a hostile work environment because of their race
Page 4
(Black), including the following.
17.
Throughout the Relevant Period, racial slurs, chief among them, “Nigger” and
“Nigga,” (collectively, N-Word) as well as racist epithets and race-based stereotyping permeated
Tesla’s Fremont Factory subjecting Black employees to racial hostility and offenses.
18.
Non-Black perpetrators of the racial misconduct have worked in a variety of
positions at Tesla, including as managers, supervisors, line leads, production leads, production
associates, and temporary workers.
19.
The racial misconduct was frequent, ongoing, inappropriate, unwelcome and
occurred across all shifts, departments, and positions, including but not limited to the Production
Associate position.
20.
Black employees have endured hearing workers from other races use “Nigger” or
“Nigga” 1 “almost every day.” One Black worker observed that “people were using the N-Word
all the time, especially men, and particularly White men.” Another worker described her non-
Black colleague repeatedly saying the N-Word, “a lot.”
21.
Non-Black managers and non-Black non-managerial employees, and temporary
workers alike directly addressed Black employees individually and collectively as N-Words.
22.
One worker described the N-Word as both his White co-workers’ and
supervisor’s preferred pronoun on the production line and said they rebuked him and other Black
employees, saying ““Nigga, you are crazy,” “Y’all niggas need help,” and “What is y’all niggas
doing?!”.
23.
Non-Black employees have begun otherwise innocuous interactions with Black
employees with phrases, such as, “Hey, Nigger, can you hand me that…?” A Black worker
explained that such slurs were, “casual and normal.”
24.
Black employees faced other race-based slurs and insults, as well. Non-Black
workers have referred to Black employees as "Black bitch,” “Black ass bitch,” “boy,” and
These epithets are masked as “N-Word”, except where cited in quotations.
Page 5
“monkey,” among other slurs. Non-Black workers have also mocked Black employees by
making “monkey” noises.
25.
Tesla’s Black employees have also withstood offensive, racial stereotyping, such
as being called by “lazy” and “smelly.” A worker described how her White co-worker would
claim, “Niggas always be late,” after a Black co-worker arrived five minutes late.
26.
Throughout the Relevant Period, Black employees also encountered displays of
racist graffiti, including swastikas, threats, and nooses. They found such graffiti on a variety of
surfaces, including on desks, in elevators, and on equipment, including vehicles rolling off the
production lines.
27.
Black employees have described the prevalence of racist imagery as “frequent,”
“constant,” “a regular thing,” and occurring “too many times to count.”
28.
Black employees couldn’t escape the hostility, even while using bathrooms where
they encountered racial slurs such as “F**k n**gers” and references to the KKK “all over the
walls.”
29.
explaining,
One Black worker recalled seeing death threats in the bathroom during breaks,
I saw KKK epithets, a swastika, and the N-Word all over the bathroom. It was so gross and racist I don’t want to discuss it. It would say ‘kill black people,’ ‘kill NWords,’ ‘hang black people,’ ‘hang N-Words.’ 30.
Throughout the Relevant period, Black employees found the slurs, insults, graffiti
and racial misconduct described in paragraphs 17 through 29 above to be offensive and unwelcome.
31.
Throughout the Relevant period, the slurs, insults, graffiti and misconduct
described in paragraphs 17 through 29 adversely affected Black employees and altered the terms and conditions of their employment.
32.
Throughout the Relevant period, Tesla knew or should have known about
aforementioned slurs, insults graffiti and misconduct.
Page 6
33.
Non-Black offenders bandied slurs and epithets openly, in high-traffic work areas
and at worker hubs, including where employees stood or sat while working, and around or on the
vehicle production lines.
34.
Supervisors and managers witnessed racially offensive conduct but failed or
refused to intercede.
35.
Black employees reported the slurs, insults, graffiti and misconduct to Tesla’s
human resources, employee relations, and managerial personnel.
36.
Despite having actual or constructive knowledge of racial harassment and
misconduct, Tesla failed and refused to take steps to address the behavior.
37.
Tesla failed to investigate complaints of racial misconduct.
38.
Tesla failed to adopt policies or practices to ensure that its temporary workforce
did not perpetrate racial harassment at the Fremont Factory.
39.
As a result, Tesla has failed throughout the Relevant Period to take prompt and
effective remedial action reasonably calculated to end the ongoing slurs, insults, graffiti and
misconduct, and the harassment continued unabated.
40.
Throughout the Relevant Period, Black employees have faced retaliation for
engaging in activity protected by Title VII including, but not limited to, opposing, rejecting
and/or complaining about racial harassment and/or race-based discrimination.
41.
Tesla has fired Black employees within weeks of them reporting or opposing
racial harassment. Tesla fired one Black employee who had opposed harassment right after
advising her of Tesla’s policy not to retaliate.
42.
After Black employees complained to Tesla, and as a result of their protected
activity, Tesla’s supervisors and human resources officials retaliated against them through
schedule changes, less desirable duties, reassignments, unjustified write-ups, and discharge.
43.
One Black employee explained, “After I voiced my unhappiness [about the
harassment], I started getting written up for every little thing that was acceptable before like
listening to music while working.” Another Black worker recalled that after reporting her Lead
for repeatedly telling Black employees not to stand together and saying that “Niggers are lazy,”
Page 7
her supervisor moved her to a more demanding part of her assembly line. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF—HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIORNMENT BECAUSE OF RACE (Title VII) 44.
herein, including paragraphs 1-43.
45.
Since at least May 29, 2015, Tesla has engaged and continues to engage in unlawful employment practices at its Fremont Factory in violation of Title VII by subjecting Black employees to harassment and/or a hostile work environment because of their race, failing to prevent and promptly correct the harassment and/or hostile work environment. 46.
The harassment and/or hostile work environment has been sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Black employees’ employment with Tesla. 47.
Tesla’s management employees knew or should have known of the harassment and/or racially hostile work environment.
48.
Tesla failed to take appropriate actions to prevent or promptly correct the racial harassment and racially hostile environment.
49.
The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43, above has been to deprive Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their employment status because of their race.
50.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43, above adversely affected Black employees and caused them to suffer damages, including emotional distress.
51.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43, above were done with malice or in reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Tesla’s Black employees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF—RETALIATION
(Title VII)
The Commission incorporates by reference all other paragraphs as set forth 52.
The Commission incorporates by reference all other paragraphs as set forth herein, including paragraphs 1-43.
Page 8
53.
Since at least May 29, 2015, Tesla has engaged in and continues to engage in
unlawful employment practices at its Fremont Factory in violation of Title VII by subjecting
Black employees to adverse employment actions, including discharge, in retaliation for their
opposition to the unlawful practices described above.
54.
The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43, above has
been to deprive Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely
affect their employment status because of their race.
55.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43,
above adversely affected Black employees and caused them to suffer damages, including lost wages and emotional distress.
56.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43,
above were intentional.
57.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1 through 43,
above were done with malice or in reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the
Charging Parties.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Tesla, its officers, successors, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with
each of them, from engaging in racial harassment, and creating a hostile work environment, and
any other employment practices which discriminate based on race (Black).
B.
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Tesla, its officers, successors, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with
each of them, from retaliating against employees or former employees who engage in protected
activity, and from engaging in any other retaliatory employment practices.
C.
Order Tesla to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs to ensure
equal employment opportunities for Black employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past
Page 9
and present unlawful employment practices and to ensure that it does not engage in further
unlawful practices in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII.
D.
Order Tesla to make the aggrieved individuals whole by providing appropriate
back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative
relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not
limited to back pay, reinstatement, or front pay in lieu thereof.
E.
Order Tesla to make the aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation
for past and future pecuniary losses, including but not limited to out-of-pocket expenses suffered
by them which resulted from the unlawful employment practices described above in the amounts
to be determined at trial.
F.
Order Tesla to make the aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation
for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above,
including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, humiliation
and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G.
Order Tesla to pay the aggrieved individuals punitive damages for its malicious
and reckless conduct as described above in amounts to be determined at trial. H.
Order Tesla to make whole the aggrieved individuals adversely affected by the
unlawful practices described above, by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the
effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to instatement, reinstatement, or front
pay in lieu thereof.
I.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
J.
Award the Commission its costs for this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Dated: September 28, 2023
Respectfully Submitted
Page 10
BY: /s/ Roberta L. Steele Roberta L. Steele Regional Attorney
CHRISTOPHER LAGE
Deputy General Counsel Office of the General Counsel 131 “M” Street NE Washington, D.C. 20507
BY: /s/ Marcia L. Mitchell Marcia L. Mitchell Assistant Regional Attorney BY: /s/ James H. Baker Jr.
James H. Baker Senior Trial Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684 0934 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 James.baker@eeoc.gov
Back to 
