CORELLA v. TESLA, INC. DBA TESLA MOTORS, INC., A DELAWARE COR... Document 1: Document

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Case No. 21CV004193
Filed December 16, 2021

Complaint Filed by: Alex Corella (Plaintiff) As to: Tesla, Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

BackBack to CORELLA v. TESLA, INC. DBA TESLA MOTORS, INC., A DELAWARE COR...

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 1 Mark L. Venardi (SBN 173140)
Martin Zurada (SBN 218235)
2 Mark Freeman (SBN 293721)
VENARDI ZURADA LLP
3 1418 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 4 Telephone: (510) 832-Facsimile: (510) 832-Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 ALEX CORELLA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

10 ALEX CORELLA, an individual,
Case No.
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
vs
TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC. a
Delaware Corporation; DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT;
2. SEX/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION &
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION;
3. RETALIATION (FEHA);
4. FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT,
DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION;
5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
6. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
7. RETALIATION (LABOR CODE § 1102.5);
8. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
Plaintiff ALEX CORELLA (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
NATURE OF CLAIM
1.
This is an action by Plaintiff, a former employee, against the Defendants, seeking
remedies for sexual harassment, discrimination based on sex/gender/sexual orientation and disability,
retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation, intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination.
-1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 2
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and is a proper venue because Tesla operates
3 its business in Alameda County and the events alleged in this Complaint occurred in Alameda
4 County.
THE PARTIES
3.
Defendant TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC. (hereinafter “Tesla”) is a
7 Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in California. Tesla designs and
8 manufactures electric vehicles.
4.
Plaintiff is a resident of California and former employee of Tesla. Plaintiff worked at
10 Tesla’s factory, located at 45500 Fremont Blvd., Fremont, CA 94538, as a Production Associate.
5.
Defendants DOES 1-5 are individuals who are believed to be California residents and
12 current or former employees of Tesla who engaged in unlawful harassment of Plaintiff.
6.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
14 of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who
15 therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and Plaintiff will seek to amend this
16 Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff
17 is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as
18 DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and
19 caused injury and damage proximately thereby to Plaintiff as alleged herein. Each reference in this
20 Complaint to "Defendant," "Defendants" or a specifically named Defendant refers also to all
21 Defendants sued under fictitious names.
7.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein
23 mentioned each of the Defendants was the agent, employee and servant of each of the remaining
24 Defendants, and in doing the actions hereinafter alleged was acting within the scope of such agency,
25 employment, and servitude, with the knowledge and consent of each of the Defendants. Whenever
26 this Complaint makes reference to "Defendants" or "Defendants, and each of them," such allegations
27 shall be deemed to mean the acts of Defendants acting individually, jointly and/or severally.
-2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 3
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
8.
At all times relevant, Tesla regularly employed five or more persons, bringing Tesla
3 within the provisions of Gov’t Code section 12900, et seq. (“FEHA”), prohibiting employers or their
4 agents from discriminating against or harassing its employees, or from allowing and fostering an
5 environment where fellow employees could harass or discriminate against other employees with
6 impunity.
9.
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies by timely filing a complaint of
8 discrimination and harassment in his employment with the California Department of Fair
9 Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against Defendants. The DFEH issued its Right-To-Sue Notice
10 letter on November 24, 2021 authorizing this lawsuit. The DFEH issued an amended Right-To-Sue
11 Notice on December 7, 2021. Plaintiff timely filed this action within the prescribed period subsequent
12 to issuance of the Right-To-Sue Notice letter. Plaintiff has, therefore, exhausted his administrative
13 remedies and timely filed this action within the prescribed period subject to issuance of the Right14 To-Sue Notice letter. A true and correct copy of the final DFEH Right-To-Sue Notice issued by the
15 DFEH is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
FACTS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT
10.
Plaintiff worked for Tesla for nearly a year, from about May 25, 2018 until about
18 May 2, 2019, at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California.
11.
Plaintiff worked as a Production Associate. Plaintiff's work involved manufacturing
20 seats for Tesla vehicles. Plaintiff is a homosexual/bisexual male. At all relevant times, Plaintiff also
21 suffered from asthma, a physical disability.
12.
Plaintiff was hired on or about May 25, 2018.

13.
Beginning about July 2018, Plaintiff began experiencing severe and pervasive
24 harassment from other Tesla employees who worked nearby. The harassment included without
25 limitation Tesla employees, including DOES 1-5, verbally harassing Plaintiff by continually calling
26 using homophobic slurs towards him, including calling him a "faggot", "homo", or "gay", as well as
27 bullying Plaintiff. Plaintiff reported this unlawful activity, including without limitation to his leads
28 and supervisors, on multiple occasions between approximately August 2018-January 2019.
-3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 4
14.
However, Tesla was interested much more in meeting its production goals than
2 protecting Plaintiff from unlawful conduct by co-workers, including DOES 1-5, and therefore
3 brushed the complaints under the rug, told Plaintiff to ignore the comments, or otherwise took little
4 or no action to stop the unlawful harassment. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to transfer to a different
5 section at the same factory because such transfer was supposed to put some distance between Plaintiff
6 and the abusive and hostile co-workers, including DOES 1-5, and thus alleviate the wrongful conduct
7 towards Plaintiff. However, the transfer did not resolve the issues and in response to Plaintiff's
8 reporting, he experienced continued retaliation from his harassers, including DOES 1-5, that included
9 without limitation being referred to as a "snitch bitch" and suggestions that Plaintiff was performing
10 oral sex on Plaintiff's supervisor. The harassment continued unabated, despite repeated complaints
11 by Plaintiff, through the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment.
15.
In addition to reporting the unlawful harassment, Plaintiff also complained about
13 unsafe work conditions and other unlawful activity at the Tesla factory. In about April 2019, Plaintiff
14 complained that Tesla was unlawfully removing overtime hours from Plaintiff's time records. In
15 about May 2019, Plaintiff also complained about the lack of surgical masks, and that without a mask
16 or some other form of protection, Plaintiff was forced to inhale hazardous and toxic fumes, chemicals,
17 and materials used to manufacture Tesla car seats that exacerbated his asthma. Tesla denied Plaintiff's
18 request for a surgical mask, did not provide any other safety equipment, and did not even attempt to
19 address the issue.
16.
On or around May 1, 2019 Plaintiff's physician placed Plaintiff on modified duty, so
21 that he could be placed away from the hazardous and toxic exposure. Plaintiff sought sick leave for
22 his disability.
17.
Tesla unlawfully terminated Plaintiff's employment on or about May 2, 2019.
24 Plaintiff's termination was pretextual. Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff
25 engaged in a protected activity by complaining and resisting sexual harassment, discrimination, and
26 other unlawful activity, reporting dangerous work conditions, and requesting a reasonable disability
27 accommodation.
-4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 5
18.
The harassment, discrimination, and retaliation has caused Plaintiff severe emotional
2 distress and other damages.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

19.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-18 of this Complaint.
20.
At all times mentioned in this Complaint, “FEHA”, Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq was in
full force and effect and was binding on Defendants. FEHA prohibits sexual harassment and requires
Defendant to refrain from sexually harassing any employee.
21.
Plaintiff was an employee of Tesla and DOES 1-5 were employees of Tesla.
22.
DOES 1-5 engaged in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature as alleged above.
23.
Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because he is a
homosexual/bisexual male. The conduct was so severe and pervasive that a reasonable person in
Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive.
24.
The conduct described in this Complaint was unwelcome to Plaintiff and was
sufficiently severe that it had the effect of altering the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and
created an intimidating, hostile, abusive and offensive work environment. At all relevant times, Tesla
had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the discriminatory and harassing conduct described and
alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and participated in the discrimination and harassment.
25.
As alleged above, Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for complaining about Tesla’s
unlawful conduct, including the severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination.
26.
DOES 1-5 are directly liable for their wrongful and unlawful acts and/or omissions.
The liability of Tesla also stems from one or more of the following: Tesla is vicariously and strictly
liable for DOES 1-5 actions as their employees; Tesla had a duty to either refrain from the wrongful
and unlawful acts or to prevent and/or restrain others from committing the wrongful and unlawful
acts; and DOES 1-5 were acting as agents of Tesla.
27.
As a result of the harassment perpetrated and maintained by Defendants, and their
failure to protect Plaintiff from further discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
damages and injury in amounts not yet ascertained, but in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of
-5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 6 1 this Court, including, but not limited to, losses in earnings, and other employment benefits, emotional
2 and physical distress, depression, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, pain and suffering and loss
3 and injury to reputation. Defendants’ actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
28.
Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
5 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
6 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Punitive damages are therefore
7 warranted against Defendants.
29.
Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12965(b) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
9 and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
SEX/GENDER/SEXUAL ORIENTATION & DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
(AGAINST TESLA)
30.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-29 of this Complaint.
31.
At all times mentioned in this Complaint, “FEHA” was in full force and effect and
was binding on Defendants. “FEHA” prohibits discrimination based on sex/gender/sexual orientation
and disability in employment and requires Defendants to refrain from harassing any employee on the
basis of their sex/gender/sexual orientation, and disability, among other things.
32.
As alleged above, Tesla treated Plaintiff differently and discriminated against him
because of his sex/gender/sexual orientation, and disability. At all relevant times, Tesla had actual
and/or constructive knowledge of the discriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and
condoned, ratified and participated in the discrimination.
33.
Tesla, through its agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful
sex/gender/sexual orientation and disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA in connection
with its treatment of Plaintiff and the terms and conditions of his employment, based on a
discriminatory animus towards sex/gender/sexual orientation and disability.
34.
The liability of Tesla stems from one or more of the following: Tesla is vicariously
liable for DOES 1-5 actions as their employees; Tesla had a duty to either refrain from the wrongful
and unlawful acts or to prevent and/or restrain others from committing the wrongful and unlawful
acts; and DOES 1-5 were acting as agents of Tesla.
-6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 7
35.
As a result of the acts of discrimination perpetrated and maintained by Tesla, and its
2 failure to protect Plaintiff from further discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
3 damages and injury in amounts not yet ascertained, but in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of
4 this Court, including, but not limited to, losses in earnings, and other employment benefits, severe
5 emotional and physical injuries, depression, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, pain and suffering
6 and loss and injury to reputation. Defendants’ actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
7 harm.
36.
Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
9 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
10 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Punitive damages are therefore
11 warranted against Defendants.
37.
Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12965(b) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
13 and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
(AGAINST TESLA)

38.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-37 of this Complaint.

39.
Plaintiff refused, resisted, complained, objected and/or expressed displeasure about
18 DOES 1-5’s wrongful and unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint. As alleged above, Tesla
19 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by complaining and
20 resisting sexual harassment and other unlawful activity, reporting dangerous work conditions, and
21 requesting a reasonable disability accommodation.
40.
Tesla, through its agents and employees, engaged in a pattern and practice of
23 retaliation in violation of FEHA in response to Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity. Tesla’s
24 actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
41.
As a direct and proximate result of Tesla’s acts, and failures and refusals to act,
26 Plaintiff suffered general and special damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum
27 of the Superior Court, according to proof at trial.
-7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 8
42.
Defendant Tesla committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
2 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
3 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Punitive damages are therefore
4 warranted against Defendant Tesla.
43.
Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12965(b) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
6 and costs.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, AND
RETALIATION
(AGAINST TESLA)

44.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-43 of this Complaint.

45.
Tesla had an affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
12 discrimination and harassment from occurring in the workplace pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12940(k).
13 Courts have interpreted section 12940(k) to encompass claims for failure to prevent retaliation in
14 addition to harassment and discrimination because retaliation is a form of discrimination under
15 FEHA. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1240,
16 disapproved on other grounds in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal. 4th
17 1158, 1174. Tesla breached this affirmative duty to express strong disapproval of harassing and
18 discriminatory practices, failed to develop appropriate sanctions for harassment and discrimination
19 practices, failed to develop appropriate methods to educate employees/managers about unlawful and
20 inappropriate practices, including the gravity of consequences for engaging in such practices, and by
21 failing to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the harassment and discrimination
22 from occurring.
46.
The liability of Tesla also stems from one or more of the following: Tesla is
24 vicariously liable for DOES 1-5’s actions as their employees; Tesla had a duty to either refrain from
25 the wrongful and unlawful acts or to prevent and/or restrain others from committing the wrongful
26 and unlawful acts; and DOES 1-5 were acting as agents of Tesla.
47.
As a proximate result of Tesla’s unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff suffered
28 and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to damages for humiliation,
-8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 9 1 embarrassment, damages for severe mental and emotional distress and discomfort, as well as forcing
2 him to incur attorneys’ fees, costs and certain other incidental damages, all according to proof.
3 Defendants’ actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
48.
Defendant Tesla committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
5 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
6 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Punitive damages are therefore
7 warranted against Defendant Tesla.
49.
Pursuant to Gov’t Code § 12965(b) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
9 and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

50.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-49 of this Complaint.

51.
Defendants acted in an extreme and outrageous manner towards Plaintiff as set forth
14 in this Complaint. Defendants either intended to cause emotional distress to Plaintiff or acted with
15 reckless disregard that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ actions.
52.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful actions, Plaintiff suffered
17 severe emotional distress and sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
53.
Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and
19 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive
20 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Punitive damages are therefore
21 warranted against Defendants.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

54.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-53 of this Complaint.

55.
Defendants acted in an outrageous manner towards Plaintiff as set forth in this
26 Complaint.
-9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 10
56.
Defendants failed to act with reasonable care to avoid causing Plaintiff emotional
2 distress as described in this Complaint. Defendants acted negligently in causing emotional distress
3 to Plaintiff.
57.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent actions, Plaintiff suffered
5 severe emotional distress and sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 1102.(AGAINST TESLA)

58.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-57 of this Complaint.
59.
Plaintiff refused, resisted, complained, objected and/or expressed displeasure about
DOES 1-5’s wrongful and unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint. As alleged above, Tesla
wrongfully terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by complaining and
resisting sexual harassment and other unlawful activity, reporting dangerous work conditions, and
requesting a reasonable disability accommodation.
60.
Tesla’s retaliatory conduct violated Labor Code § 1102.5(b) which provides in
relevant part that an “employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate
against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee
disclosed or may disclose information. . . to a person with authority over the employee or another
employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance,
. . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state
or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation”.
61.
Tesla’s retaliatory conduct violated Labor Code § 1102.5(c) which provides that an
“[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an
employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal
statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.”
62.
Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of Tesla’s violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(b)-
(c), including loss of earnings and benefits, and severe emotional and physical distress, all of which
will be proven at trial. In addition to any other legal remedies, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive
- 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 11 1 damages not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 pursuant to Labor Code
2 § 1102.5(f).
63.
Tesla committed the acts alleged herein maliciously fraudulently and oppressively,
4 with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to
5 malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover
6 punitive damages from Tesla in an amount according to proof at trial.
64.
Plaintiff was not required to exhaust any administrative remedies to bring his Labor
8 Code §1102.5 claims because Labor Code § 244(a) provides that no such exhaustion is required
9 under any Labor Code provision unless “that section under which the action is brought expressly
10 requires exhaustion of an administrative remedy”. Labor Code §1102.5 does not contain an
11 exhaustion requirement.
65.
Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(j) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
13 and costs.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(AGAINST TESLA)

66.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-65 of this Complaint.
67.
Plaintiff refused, resisted, complained, objected and/or expressed displeasure about
Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint. As alleged above, Tesla
wrongfully terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by complaining and
resisting sexual harassment and other unlawful activity, reporting dangerous work conditions, and
requesting a reasonable disability accommodation.
68.
The conduct described in this complaint, including harassment, retaliation, and
wrongful actual/constructive resignation of Plaintiff, constitute a violation of public policy embodied
in provisions of FEHA, prohibiting employers or their agents from sexually harassing employees, or
from allowing and fostering an environment where fellow employees could harass other employees
with impunity, discriminating against employees based on their sex/gender/sexual orientation and
disability, also retaliating (in violation of violation of FEHA and Labor Code §§ 1102.5(b) and (c)).
- 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 12
69.
The liability of Tesla also stems from one or more of the following: Tesla is
2 vicariously liable for DOES 1-5’s actions as their employees; Tesla had a duty to either refrain from
3 the wrongful and unlawful acts or to prevent and/or restrain others from committing the wrongful
4 and unlawful acts; and DOES 1-5 were acting as an agent of Tesla. As a direct and proximate result
5 of Plaintiff’s forced resignation, he has suffered and continues to suffer damages that exceed the
6 jurisdictional limit of this Court, including loss of earnings, benefits and severe emotional and
7 physical distress, all of which will be proven at trial.
70.
Tesla committed the acts alleged herein maliciously fraudulently and oppressively,
9 with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to
10 malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover
11 punitive damages from Tesla in an amount according to proof at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment to be entered against Defendants, and each of them
14 for:
1. Compensatory, general and special damages, according to proof;

2. Punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof;

3. Damages or statutory penalties provided by Labor Code § 1102.5;

4. Costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code §

12965(b), Labor Code § 1102.5(j), and where may otherwise be authorized by law;

5. Costs of the suit herein; and

6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
23 Dated: December 14,
VENARDI ZURADA LLP

Martin Zurada
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALEX CORELLA

- 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 13
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: December 14,
VENARDI ZURADA LLP

_
_______________________________
Martin Zurada
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALEX CORELLA

- 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CASE NO.:
Page 14 EXHIBIT 1
Page 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Martin Zurada
Venardi Zurada LLP 101 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite Walnut Creek, CA RE:
Notice to Complainant’s Attorney
DFEH Matter Number: 202111-Right to Sue: Corella / Tesla Motors, Inc. et al.
Dear Martin Zurada:
Attached is a copy of your amended complaint of discrimination filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on
the employer. You or your client must serve the complaint.
The amended complaint is deemed to have the same filing date of the original
complaint. This is not a new Right to Sue letter. The original Notice of Case Closure
and Right to Sue issued in this case remains the only such notice provided by the
DFEH. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 10022.)
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 16
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)

In the Matter of the Complaint of
DFEH No. 202111-
Alex Corella
Complainant,
vs.
Tesla Motors, Inc.
45500 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA Tesla, Inc.
45500 Fremont Blvd
Fremton, CA Unknown Tesla Employees 1-5 Unknown
45500 Fremont Blvd
Fremont, CA
Respondents

1. Respondent Tesla Motors, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
2.Complainant is naming Tesla, Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming Unknown Tesla Employees 1-5 Unknown individual as CoRespondent(s).
3. Complainant Alex Corella, resides in the City of Walnut Creek, State of CA.

4. Complainant alleges that on or about May 2, 2019, respondent took the following
adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, gender identity or
expression, sexual orientation, genetic information or characteristic, disability (physical or
mental), medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), sexual harassment- hostile
environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo.

-1Complaint – DFEH No. 202111-
Date Filed: November 24,
28 Date Amended: December 7, DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 17 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, gender
2 identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability (physical or mental), medical condition
(cancer or genetic characteristic), sexual harassment- hostile environment, sexual
3 harassment- quid pro quo and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied
reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or assignments,
4 denied or forced to transfer.
5 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation and
as a result was terminated, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work
opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
Additional Complaint Details: Plaintiff worked at Tesla's Fremont, California factory as a
Production Associate. Plaintiff's work involved manufacturing seats for Tesla vehicles.
Plaintiff is a homosexual/bisexual male. At all relevant times, Plaintiff also suffered from
asthma, a physical disability.
11 Plaintiff was hired on May 25, 2018. Beginning about July 2018, Plaintiff began experiencing
severe and pervasive harassment from other Tesla employees who worked nearby. The
12 harassment included without limitation Tesla employees verbally harassing Plaintiff by
continually calling him a "faggot", "homo", or "gay", as well as bullying plaintiff. Plaintiff
13 reported this unlawful activity including without limitation to his leads and supervisors on
multiple occasions between approximately August 2018-January 2019, but Tesla brushed
14 the complaints under the rug, told Plaintiff to ignore the comments, or otherwise took little or
no action to stop the unlawful harassment. Plaintiff was forced to transfer to a different
factory section because such transfer was supposed to alleviate the wrongful conduct
towards Plaintiff. However, the transfer did not resolve the issues and in response to
Plaintiff's reporting, he experienced retaliation from his harassers, including without limitation
being referred to as a "snitch bitch" and suggestions that Plaintiff was performing oral sex on
Plaintiff's supervisor. The harassment continued unabated through the conclusion of
Plaintiff's employment.
19 In addition to reporting the unlawful harassment, Plaintiff also frequently complained about
unsafe work conditions and other unlawful activity at the Tesla factory. In about April 2019,
20 Plaintiff complained that Defendant was unlawfully removing overtime hours from Plaintiff's
time records. In about May 2019, Plaintiff also complained about the lack of surgical masks,
21 and that without a mask, Plaintiff was forced to inhale toxic fumes and other chemicals and
materials that exacerbated his asthma. Tesla denied Plaintiff's request for a surgical mask.
22 On or around May 1, 2019 Plaintiff's physician placed Plaintiff on modified duty, so that he
could be placed away from the toxic exposure. Plaintiff sought sick leave for his disability.
24 Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff's employment on or about May 2, 2019. Plaintiff's
termination was pretextual. Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff
engaged in a protected activity by complaining and resisting sexual harassment and other

-2Complaint – DFEH No. 202111-
Date Filed: November 24,
28 Date Amended: December 7, DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 18 1 unlawful activity, reporting dangerous work conditions, and requesting disability
accommodation. The harassment, discrimination, and retaliation has caused Plaintiff severe
2 emotional distress and other damages.
-3Complaint – DFEH No. 202111-
Date Filed: November 24,
28 Date Amended: December 7, DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 19 1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Martin Zurada, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
On November 24, 2021, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
5 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Oakland, California

-4Complaint – DFEH No. 202111-
Date Filed: November 24,
28 Date Amended: December 7, DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?