BARKER v. TESLA, INC., et al. Document 1: Document

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Case No. 22CV006357
Filed February 1, 2022

Complaint Filed by: Kaylen S Barker (Plaintiff) As to: TESLA, INC. (Defendant); STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC (Defendant)

BackBack to BARKER v. TESLA, INC., et al.

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

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 1 THE SAMPATH LAW FIRM
Supreeta Sampath (SBN: 232190)
2 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 3 Oakland, CA T: (415) 231-5855 | F:(415) 202-4 E: supreeta@sampathlaw.com
5 ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP
J. Bernard Alexander, III (SBN 128307)
6 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite Los Angeles, California 7 T: 310 394 0888 | F: 310 394 E: balexander@akgllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
9 KAYLEN SHERRELL BARKER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
14 KAYLEN SHERRELL BARKER,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TESLA, INC. DBA TESLA MOTORS, INC, )
)
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC DBA
ADVANTAGE RESOURCING and DOES 1 )
)
through 20, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. Race Discrimination
(Gov. Code § 12940(a))
2. Sexual Orientation Discrimination
(Gov. Code §12940(a))
3. Harassment (Gov. Code §12940(j))
4. Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940 (h))
5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination,
Harassment, and Retaliation (Gov.
Code §12940(k))
6. Negligent Hiring Retention and
Supervision
7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy
8. Waiting Time Penalties
(Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 2
Plaintiff Kaylen Sherrell Barker (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Barker”) complains and alleges
2 the following against Defendants Tesla, Inc. doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc.
3 (“Tesla”), Staffmark Investment LLC doing business as Advantage Resourcing
4 (“Staffmark”) and Does 1-20 (collectively, "Defendants"):
INTRODUCTION
Tesla Inc. presents a disturbing paradox. While Tesla is hailed as the world’s
7 wealthiest and most advanced leader in the electronic vehicle revolution, Tesla itself
8 engages in and tolerates abhorrent employment practices that enable rampant acts of
racism to breed in its factories. Unaware of the festering, unchecked racism present in
its factories, employees like Plaintiff, eagerly join Tesla excited to help advance the
company’s clean energy vision of the future. Tesla employees expect to be treated with
the same dignity and respect that this forward thinking company bestows on the
environment. But as Plaintiff discovered, being a Black worker at a Tesla’s renowned
California factory, is to be forced to step back in time and suffer painful abuses
reminiscent of the Jim Crow Era.
Plaintiff Kaylen Barker, an African American woman, became the target of
flagrant racially motivated abuse by a white Tesla employee. Plaintiff complained to
17 Tesla’s HR and her supervisors about being subjected to pervasive use of the N-word,
18 only to have her complaints ignored. Tesla’s failure to address Plaintiff’s reports of
19 misconduct enabled the abuse to escalate. A white Tesla employee struck Plaintiff with
20 a hot grinding tool while calling Plaintiff a “Stupid, dumb, N----r, bitch.” Adding insult to
21 injury, Tesla initially terminated the white employee, only to rehire her. Meanwhile,
22 Tesla harassed Plaintiff with the objective of extracting a concession that Plaintiff had
23 somehow contributed to causing the racial harassment perpetrated against her. Tesla
24 further retaliated against Plaintiff by failing to pay her wages for several weeks of time
25 worked and eventually terminating her employment.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil
3 Procedure § 395.5 and California Government Code § 12965. Tesla’s principal place of
4 business in California is in Fremont, California, in the County of Alameda. Staffmark
5 also maintains a Fremont, California office and conducts business in the County of
6 Alameda. For purposes of Section 395.5, liability arises where the Defendant’s principal
7 place of business is situated. Accordingly, Defendants are within the jurisdiction of this
8 Court for purposes of service of process.
2.
Under Section 12965, an action may be brought in any county “in which
10 unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed, in the county in which records
11 relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are maintained and administered, or in the
12 county in which the person claiming to be aggrieved would have worked … but for the
13 alleged unlawful practices” Upon information and belief, one or more unlawful practices
14 were committed in Alameda County, records relevant to the allegations pled herein are
15 maintained and administered in Alameda County, and, Plaintiff could have worked in
16 Alameda County but for Defendants unlawful practices.
PARTIES

3.
Defendant Tesla Inc. doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) is a
19 publicly traded Delaware corporation, conducting business in the County of Alameda
20 and the State of California. Tesla designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles.
21 Tesla’s largest vehicle manufacturing facility in California (the “Tesla Factory”) is located
22 at 45500 Fremont Boulevard in Fremont, California, consisting of 5.3 million square feet
23 of manufacturing and office space on 370 acres in Alameda County. Upon information
24 and belief, records relevant to the unlawful practices described herein are maintained
25 and/or administered at the Tesla Factory. Due to Tesla’s ownership and day-to-day
26 managerial role in its California facilities, its right to hire, fire and discipline employees,

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 4 1 and its control of all terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, Tesla is Plaintiff’s
2 joint employer, which provides employment pursuant to contract.
4.
Defendant Staffmark Investment LLC doing business as Advantage
4 Resourcing (“Staffmark”) is a Delaware corporation, conducting business in the County
5 of Alameda and the State of California. Staffmark is a staffing company that provides
6 employees to businesses for short-and long-term assignments, and therefore provides
7 employment pursuant to contract. Staffmark’s employees are assigned and sent to work
8 at their client’s sites, and receive Staffmark paychecks until the client directly hires the
9 employee. Thereafter, upon information and belief, Staffmark retains a financial interest
10 in the employees hired. Further, Staffmark retains and selects the initial locations
11 where its employees are assigned and work. Plaintiff applied to work at Tesla through
12 Staffmark; received all relevant training and orientation directly through Tesla; and
13 clocked in and out using Tesla’s timekeeping system, among other things. Tesla
14 maintained power over hiring and firing decisions with respect to Plaintiff’s employment.
15 One month after her hire, Plaintiff was selected to work for Tesla, rather than being
16 assigned a location by Staffmark and, upon information and belief, began receiving
17 paychecks directly from Tesla. Plaintiff is informed and believes that both Staffmark
18 and Tesla maintained separate personnel or employment files for Plaintiff. Plaintiff is
19 informed and believes and alleges that in addition to being joint employers, Defendants
20 Tesla and Staffmark are alter egos and/or integrated enterprises such that the actions of
21 one entity can be and are attributable to the other entity.
5.
Plaintiff Kaylen Sherrell Barker (hereinafter “Plaintiff or Ms. Barker”) is an
23 African American and gay, and a resident of California. Ms. Barker is, and at all
24 relevant times herein was employed as a Line Lead jointly by defendants Staffmark and
25 Tesla, from on or about February 8, 2021, until her wrongful termination on October 29,

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 5 1 2021. Ms. Barker was placed by Staffmark at Tesla’s manufacturing plant in Lathrop,
2 California.
6.
Defendants are an employer subject to suit under the California Fair
4 Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 12940, et seq.
5 (“FEHA”), because they are businesses with five or more employees doing business in
6 the state of California.
7.
The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as Does
8 through 20, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise are
9 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue said Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to
10 California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show
11 such true names and capacities of Does 1 through 20, inclusive, when they have been
12 determined.
8.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
14 Defendant was, at all times herein mentioned, a joint employer, an agent, employee,
15 and/or representative of the remaining Defendants and was acting within the course and
16 scope of such relationship with the remaining Defendants. Plaintiff is further informed
17 and believes that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified and
18 authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the remaining Defendants.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

9.
Kaylen Barker is a 25-year-old, gay, African American woman. On or
21 about January 29, 2021, using Defendant Staffmark’s website, Ms. Barker applied
22 online for open positions at Tesla’s Fremont and Lathrop factories in Northern
23 California.
10.
Soon thereafter, Ms. Barker received notification from Staffmark that she
25 had been assigned to work at the Tesla Factory located in Lathrop, California.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 6 1 Staffmark further informed Plaintiff that her orientation would be conducted on February
2 4, 2021, by Tesla at the Tesla factory.
11.
On or about February 4, 2021, Plaintiff began working at the Tesla factory
4 as a Line Worker grinding and inspecting brake parts for the Tesla vehicle. For
5 approximately two (2) months, Ms. Barker worked long, hard and challenging hours
6 working twelve (12) hours of work four (4) days in a row with three (3) subsequent days
7 off.
12.
Ms. Barker’s hard work and diligence was noticed. In or about April
9 Tesla promoted Ms. Barker to a Line Lead. In this position, Ms. Barker supervised
10 approximately eleven (11) of her former fellow line workers on Tesla vehicle brakes.
11 Word quickly spread throughout the facility that Plaintiff was promoted, and she
12 began facing racial slurs and harassing conduct from a co-worker “Joanne” [last
13 name unknown]. Initially, Ms. Barker attempted to ignore the conduct and deal with it
14 herself. When the harassment escalated, Ms. Barker sought help from Tesla Human
15 Resources (“Tesla HR”) to no avail.
13.
Beginning on or about May 20, 2021, Joanne began making derogatory
17 and racist comments to Plaintiff, such as “Tesla should not have promoted a
18 black girl over her.” Plaintiff Barker was told Tesla HR would take care of it. This did
19 not occur. On or about May 26, 2021, a second incident, occurred with Joanne. In
20 response to Joanne asking where Plaintiff was from and finding out Plaintiff was
21 from “Cotton Plant, Arkansas”, Joanne asked, “Do you guys pick cotton there?”
22 Joanne told line workers not to listen to Plaintiff because, “She is black and doesn’t
23 know anything,” which prompted Plaintiff’s crew members to became very rude to her.
24 Whenever Ms. Barker walked into a room Joanne and whoever she was talking to
25 would giggle and point at Ms. Barker. The obvious shunning made Ms. Barker feel
26 ridiculed and unwelcome, whereas she was once liked by most of her crew members.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 7 1 On or about July 15, 2021 Joanne stated that her “parents owned slaves and no
2 Caucasian is supposed to work under a black person.” Later, Joanne started
3 using the N-word under her breath as she passed Plaintiff and became more
4 physically aggressive towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff objected to Joanne’s treatment of
5 her as insulting, humiliating and demoralizing. In response to each incident, Plaintiff
6 repeatedly made a report to Tesla HR and/or her supervisor, who responded that they
7 would address it. However, at no time did Tesla notify Plaintiff of any corrective action
8 being taken. Joanne’s harassment of Plaintiff never stopped. Rather, it escalated and
9 prompted other workers to join in. Because Ms. Barker liked and needed her job, she
10 tried her best to avoid contact or encounters with Joanne. In contrast, Joanne went out
11 of her way to initiate contact and spew hateful racial comments at Plaintiff.
14.
On or about September 9, 2021, Joanne’s conduct escalated to assault.
13 Joanne struck Plaintiff on her right thigh with a hot grinding tool. As her lead, Plaintiff
14 approached Joanne, out of concern for her safety, to instruct her that she was standing
15 too close to the machine. Joanne responded by calling Plaintiff a “Stupid, dumb,
16 N----r , bitch” and threw a hot tool at Plaintiff, hitting her right thigh and creating a
17 bruise.
15.
As with previous incidents, Ms. Barker immediately reported this incident
19 to Tesla HR and Joanne was finally fired.
16.
In a subsequent meeting with Tesla employee Sarah [last name unknown]
21 and Rachel’s supervisor, Sarah told Plaintiff that Plaintiff should be fired too. Given
22 Plaintiff’s history of reporting Joanne’s racist treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was surprised
23 by Sarah’s statement as Ms. Barker had done nothing wrong.
17.
Tesla HR sent Plaintiff home that day with no further explanation. While
25 Plaintiff Barker indicated a desire to file a police report on September 9, 2021, her
26 supervisor (Rachel) instructed Plaintiff not to do so and that Tesla would address the

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 8 1 situation. Plaintiff returned to work the next day and continued to supervise her crew,
2 feeling that her troubles were finally over, now that the instigator Joanne was gone.
3 Rachel commended Plaintiff Barker for her good work, strength and resilience.
18.
Approximately two (2) weeks later, without any forewarning or explanation
5 to the Plaintiff, Tesla shockingly rehired Joanne and assigned her to Sarah’s
6 department, under Sarah’s supervision. With Joanne’s return to work at Tesla, Plaintiff
7 felt extremely unsafe at work. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated complaints and disclosure of
8 racial harassment by Joanne, Plaintiff was painfully aware that Tesla had sided with
9 Plaintiff’s harasser, Joanne. Notwithstanding the harassment she had endured, and the
10 re-employment of Joanne in the workplace, Plaintiff continued working at Tesla because
11 she desperately needed her job.
19.
Following the September 9, 2021 attack by Joanne, Plaintiff continued to
13 work her regular hours. Having worked for several weeks without receiving a pay check,
14 on or about September 6, 2021, Plaintiff complained to Tesla HR, and was told that
15 Tesla HR inquired about it. On or about September 10, 2021, when Plaintiff had heard
16 nothing more, Plaintiff again asked about her unpaid, overdue paycheck from
17 September 3, 2021.
20.
On September 10, 2021, HR informed Plaintiff for the first time that she
19 was now under investigation, but did not instruct Plaintiff not to come to work, pending
20 the results of the investigation. Therefore, Plaintiff continued to work her regular
21 schedule over the next few weeks.
21.
When Plaintiff again failed to receive her September 17, 2021 paycheck,
23 Plaintiff inquired and was now shockingly told that she was under investigation for
24 continuing to appear at work for the two weeks following the assault, because she had
25 purportedly been suspended, information which was never conveyed to Plaintiff, either
26 verbally or in writing. Nor was Plaintiff’s electronic access to the work site blocked. In

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 9 1 fact, Plaintiff continued to clock in and out utilizing Tesla’s timekeeping software without
2 interruption, as Plaintiff had done throughout her employment. No one informed Plaintiff
3 of her purported suspension or that she was forbidden to enter the work premises.
22.
Plaintiff reported Joanne’s racial harassment to both HR and her
5 immediate supervisor “Rachel” [(last name unknown]). In fact, Rachel reviewed video
6 footage of the incident between Plaintiff and Joanne and confirmed that Plaintiff was not
7 the aggressor and should not be fired, a position that contradicted that of Tesla HR.
8 Plaintiff is informed and believes that Rachel refused to engage in unlawful conduct by
9 firing Plaintiff at the direction of Tesla management following the September 9, 10 incident, and was written up and reprimanded for insubordination in retaliation for
11 identifying Joanne as the aggressor, for objecting to Tesla management’s unlawful
12 employment practices in protecting and condoning racial harassment performed by
13 Joanne against Plaintiff, for objecting to the rehiring of Joanne, and was ultimately
14 transferred to Tesla’s Fremont Factory.
23.
In addition to failing to notify Plaintiff that she was suspended, Tesla
16 harassed Plaintiff. Beginning on or about September 23, 2021, and on a near daily
17 basis at around 1:00 pm, Tesla HR would summon Plaintiff into their office and demand
18 she sign a document falsely confessing to being insubordinate. Each day, Plaintiff
19 Barker refused to sign and insisted that it was Joanne that was racist, harassing and
20 insubordinate, not Plaintiff. Each time Plaintiff refused, Tesla HR punished Plaintiff by
21 sending her home and not allowing Plaintiff to complete her work shift, causing Plaintiff
22 to lose approximately 5 hours of pay per day. Plaintiff was subjected to this
23 harassment until October 29, 2021.
24.
Harassment by Joanne, coupled with harassment by Tesla HR
25 overwhelmed Plaintiff. For slightly over two weeks, from approximately October 11,
26 2021 to October 27, 2021, Plaintiff was forced to take personal time (“PT”) hours off

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 10 1 from work due to suffering from physical and mental stress, including severe migraines
2 and difficulty sleeping. Twice Plaintiff was forced to visit the Emergency Room due to
3 severe migraines and other symptoms.
25.
When Plaintiff returned to work on October 28, 2021, and she was again
5 summoned into Tesla HR with her supervisor Sarah, who demanded that Plaintiff sign
6 a document falsely admitting that Plaintiff was insubordinate. When Plaintiff refused,
7 she was again sent home without pay.
26.
When Plaintiff returned to work on October 29, 2021, Tesla HR person
9 Brittany [last name unknown] summoned Plaintiff into HR, where Plaintiff’s supervisor
10 Sarah was already. For the approximately sixth (6th) and final time, Tesla HR
11 demanded that Plaintiff sign a false statement admitting that she was insubordinate.
12 When Plaintiff refused, she was summarily terminated without explanation. When
13 Plaintiff asked why she was being fired, Tesla HR refused to respond. Tesla failed to
14 deliver Plaintiff’s final paycheck on the date of her termination, and was pointedly
15 escorted off Tesla’s facility by Tesla security, as though Plaintiff were a criminal.
27.
On this and previous occasions, Plaintiff had asked for a copy of the
17 document she was being harassed and forced to sign, or to be allowed to take a picture
18 of the document, but Plaintiff’s requests were refused. Prior to these confrontations with
19 Tesla HR, Plaintiff had never previously been written for any reason. After these
20 confrontations, and on multiple occasions, Plaintiff requested a copy of her personnel
21 file so that she could ascertain what had or was being written about her. Tesla HR
22 ignored her. Plaintiff further at least four (4) or or five (5) times requested an email
23 address to which she could send a written complaint about the treatment she was being
24 subjected to. Tesla HR either refused, ignored Plaintiff’s requests, or offered dismissive
25 excuses, such as “email is down” or “we can’t be contacted by email” or “we are too
26 busy.”

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 11
28.
In or about mid-October 2021, in frustration, Plaintiff drafted and delivered
2 a complaint to Tesla HR by certified mail for which Plaintiff received a confirmation
3 receipt. In that letter, Plaintiff Barker pleaded for help in being allowed to return to Tesla
4 and a safe work environment free of harassment based on race by her co-workers, and
5 intimidation and retaliation by Tesla HR. Not only has Tesla failed to respond to the
6 letter, it has feigned that Plaintiff was not even an employee. As of this date, Tesla
7 continues to withhold payment of Plaintiffs paychecks for the paydays of September 3,
8 17, October 1 and 15, 2021, and her final paycheck for the week of October 25, 2021.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

29.
On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of
11 Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) against Defendants including her claims pled in
12 this complaint. On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff obtained her Right-to-Sue Letter from the
13 DFEH, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Race Discrimination
(Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)

Against All Defendants, DOES 1-20)

30.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
31.
Plaintiff Kaylen Barker is an African-American woman.
32.
Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California
Government Code § 12940(a), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against
an employee on the basis of color and race.
33.
Defendants were at all times employers as defined under the FEHA.
34.
Defendants tolerated rampant use of the word “N-----” in the workplace, as
well as other derogatory and insulting references to Plaintiff based on her race.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 12
35.
Tesla discriminated against Plaintiff based on her color and race, by
2 treating Plaintiff less favorably than white employees and subjecting her to racially
3 harassing and retaliatory conduct by Tesla HR and supervisors, including (1) failing and
4 refusing to timely pay Plaintiff for her time worked; (2) attempting to force Plaintiff to sign
5 false documentation of insubordination in order to protect and favor a white employee
6 over a Black employee; (3) refusing to allow Plaintiffs the same benefits and privileges
7 of employment granted to and enjoyed by non-African American employees, such as
8 being provided access to her personnel file, being provided with access and the ability
9 to contact centralized human resources for Tesla, and the like; and (4) terminating
10 Plaintiff, among other things. Non-African American employees performing their job
11 duties in a satisfactory manner were not subjected to the same treatment or denied the
12 same privileges, benefits and conditions of employment. As such, Plaintiff was
13 subjected to disparity in treatment based on her color and race.
36.
Tesla failed to take any corrective action in response to Plaintiff’s
15 complaints of discrimination based on Plaintiff’s color and race.
37.
Defendants’ practice of failing to take appropriate corrective action in
17 response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints was a substantial factor in causing
18 Plaintiff’s harm.
38.
Tesla subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of discrimination based on her color
20 and race, in violation California Government Code § 12940 et seq., with emphasis on
21 California Government Code § 12940(a), and the rights guaranteed by the California
22 Constitution, Article I, Section 7 & 8. For the purposes of this count, said acts constitute
23 unlawful employment discrimination based on actual race discrimination.
39.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
25 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other
26 employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 13
40.
As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’
2 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
3 and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
41.
By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
5 necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore
6 entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness
7 fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action.
42.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
9 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
10 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights
11 of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an
12 amount according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Sexual Orientation Discrimination

(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.

Against All Defendants, DOES 1-20)
43.
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein and
asserts this cause of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 (Defendants collectively
addressed as “Tesla” or “Defendants” for purposes of this count).
44.
Plaintiff Kaylen Barker is a gay woman.
45.
Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California

Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
Government Code §§ 12940(a), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against
an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.
46.
Defendants were at all times employers as defined under the FEHA.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 14
47.
Defendants tolerated rampant use of the word “Bitch” in the workplace, as
2 well as other derogatory and insulting references to Plaintiff based on her being gay.
48.
Tesla discriminated against Plaintiff based on her being gay, by treating
4 Plaintiff less favorably than heterosexual employees and subjecting Plaintiff to
5 harassment based on her sexual orientation being of gay, including (1) failing and
6 refusing to timely pay Plaintiff for her time worked; (2) attempting to force Plaintiff to sign
7 false documentation of insubordination in order to protect and favor a white employee
8 over a Black employee; (3) refusing to allow Plaintiffs the same benefits and privileges
9 of employment granted to and enjoyed by non-gay or heterosexual employees, such as
10 being provided access to her personnel file, being provided with access and the ability
11 to contact centralized human resources for Tesla, and the like; and (4) terminating
12 Plaintiff, among other things. Non-gay and heterosexual employees performing their job
13 duties in a satisfactory manner were not subjected to the same treatment or denied the
14 same privileges, benefits and conditions of employment. As such, Plaintiff was
15 subjected to disparity in treatment based on her status of being gay.
49.
Tesla failed to take corrective action in response to Plaintiff’s complaints of
17 discrimination based on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation.
50.
Defendants’ practice of failing to take appropriate corrective action in
19 response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints was a substantial factor in causing
20 Plaintiff’s harm.
51.
Tesla subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of discrimination based on her sexual
22 orientation, in violation California Government Code § 12940 et seq., with emphasis on
23 California Government Code § 12940(a), and the rights guaranteed by the California
24 Constitution, Article I, Section 7 & 8. For the purposes of this count, said acts constitute
25 unlawful employment discrimination based on actual sexual orientation discrimination.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 15
52.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
2 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other
3 employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses.
53.
As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’
5 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
6 and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
54.
By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
8 necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore
9 entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness
10 fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action.
55.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
12 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
13 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights
14 of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an
15 amount according to proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Harassment

(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.

Against All Defendants, DOES 1-20)

56.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
22 contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
57.
Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California
24 Government Code §§ 12940(a), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against
25 an employee on the basis of race, color and sexual orientation.
58.
Defendants were at all times employers as defined under the FEHA.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 16
59.
Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of harassment, based on her
2 race, color and sexual orientation, in violation of California Government Code § 3 et seq., with emphasis on California Government Code § 12940(j), as well as the rights
4 guaranteed by the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7 & 8.
60.
Plaintiff was subjected to working in a severe, persistent and/or pervasive
6 hostile work environment, which interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance, denied
7 and adversely affected Plaintiff as to the privileges, benefits and conditions of
8 employment on the basis of her race, color and sexual orientation.
61.
The harassing conduct to which Plaintiff was subjected was so severe,
10 widespread, and/or persistent that a reasonable gay African American in Plaintiff’s
11 circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile and/or
12 abusive.
62.
Plaintiff did in fact consider her work environment to be hostile and/or
14 abusive.
63.
Tesla failed to take prompt, remedial and effective corrective action to stop
16 the harassers.
64.
As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
18 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings, other
19 employment benefits, and other incurred economic losses.
65.
As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’
21 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
22 and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
66.
Defendants’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned
24 state laws. As a direct result, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses
25 related to the loss of wages, and she is entitled to recover costs, expenses, and

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 17 1 attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligation under
2 state law and their respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial.
67.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
4 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
5 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
6 rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an
7 amount according to proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation

(Cal. Gov’t Code §12940(h), et seq.

Against All Defendants, Does 1-20)

68.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
69.
Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California
Government Code §12940(h), which prohibits an employer from retaliation against an
employee on the basis of race, color or sexual orientation.
70.
Defendants were at all times employers as defined under the FEHA.
71.
Plaintiff engaged in one or more forms of protected activity, including, but
not limited to, (1) complaining about race and sexual orientation discrimination and
harassment at Tesla, (2) complaining about not being paid her wages; and (3) objecting
to defendants illegal treatment of Plaintiff, by refusing to sign a forced, unlawful,
retaliatory and false confession of purported insubordination, among other things.
72.
In response to and because of Plaintiff’s protected activity, Tesla engaged
in one or more adverse actions against Plaintiff, including but not limited to continued

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 18 1 discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff; denial of wages for time worked and
2 termination, among other things.
73.
Defendant subjected Plaintiff to retaliation for opposing violations of legal
4 rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7 & 8 as well as
5 California Government Code § 12940 et seq., with emphasis on California Government
6 Code § 12940(h). For the purposes of this cause of action, said acts constitute
7 retaliation.
74.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
9 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other
10 employment benefits and has incurred other economic losses.
75.
As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’
12 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
13 and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
76.
By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
15 necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore
16 entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness
17 fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action.
77.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
19 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
20 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights
21 of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an
22 amount according to proof.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATON, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION

(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.

Against All Defendants, Does 1-20)

78.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
79.
Plaintiff at all times was an employee covered by the FEHA, California
Government Code §12940(h), which prohibits an employer from retaliation against an
employee on the basis of race, color or sexual orientation.
80.
Defendants were at all times employers as defined under the FEHA.
81.
During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, as alleged herein, Tesla failed
to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation from occurring, in violation of California Government Code § 12940 et seq.,
with emphasis on California Government Code § 12940(k), and the rights guaranteed
by the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7 & 8. For the purposes of this count,
said acts constitute unlawful discrimination and violate public policy based employment
practices based on the failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring, including the failure to
meaningfully investigate and remediate such discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation.
82.
Defendants’ acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation and failures
to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, as described above, resulted in
one or more adverse actions, including Plaintiff’s wrongful termination.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 20
83.
As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
2 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings, other
3 employment benefits, and other incurred economic losses.
84.
As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’
5 actions, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, shame,
6 and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
85.
Defendants’ actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned
8 state laws. As a direct result, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer substantial losses
9 related to the loss of wages, and she is entitled to recover costs, expenses, and
10 attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendant to fully perform its obligation under state
11 law and their respective damage amounts according to proof at time of trial.
86.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
13 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
14 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
15 rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an
16 amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION

(Against All Defendants)
87.
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
88.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
Upon information and belief, Tesla, by and through its agents and
employees, knew or reasonably should have known through reasonable investigation of
some of its agents and/or employees’ propensity for unlawful, racially harassing and
physically aggressive behavior.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 21
89.
Defendants had a duty not to hire, retain or rehire employees/agents
2 given their wrongful, dangerous, and racial and anti-gay offensive propensities, and to
3 provide reasonable supervision of these employees/agents.
90.
Defendants negligently hired, retained and/or failed to adequately
5 supervise these employees/agents in their positions where they were able to commit the
6 wrongful acts complained of here against Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to provide
7 reasonable supervision of these employees/agents despite knowing of their propensities
8 and complaints made against them.
91.
As a direct and consequential result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has
10 suffered serious emotional distress. Such harm includes, but is not limited to, pain,
11 anxiety, humiliation, anger, shame, embarrassment, frustration, and fear. Plaintiff
12 alleges Defendants’ are responsible for the harm she suffered.
92.
By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
14 necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the present action. Plaintiff is therefore
15 entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness
16 fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
93.
Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously,
18 fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an
19 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
20 rights. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an
21 amount according to proof.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.

Against All Defendants, DOES 1-20)

94.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
95.
During her employment with Tesla, Plaintiff was subjected to working
conditions that violated public policy. Defendants discriminated against and harassed
Plaintiff based on her race and sexual orientation and complaints of race and sexual
orientation discrimination and Tesla’s failure to pay her wages. Defendants further
subjected Plaintiff to retaliation for complaining about the aforesaid discrimination and
wages through adverse employment actions including termination.
96.
Plaintiff’s complaints of race and sexual orientation discrimination and
Tesla’s failure to pay Plaintiff her wages were a substantial motivating reason for
Plaintiff’s discharge.
97.
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants as set forth
above, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages
and general and special damages in a sum according to proof, in an amount exceeding
the jurisdictional limits of this Court. In addition, Defendants are responsible for interest,
penalties, costs, and attorney fees related to this cause of action.
98.
Because these wrongful acts were carried out, authorized, or ratified by
Defendants’ directors, officers and/or managing agents, acting with malice, oppression
or fraud, or were deliberate, willful, and in conscious disregard of the probability of
causing injury to Plaintiff, as reflected by the actions as described earlier in this

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 23 1 Complaint, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants in order to deter them
2 from similar conduct in the future.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND WAITING TIME PENALTIES

Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-
(Against all Defendants)
99.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth at length herein.
100.
As stated more fully in Paragraph 29 above, at the time of Plaintiff’s
discharge, Defendants owed Plaintiff wages that had not been paid to her when they
became due.
101.
Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all wages due and owing her
immediately upon termination or resignation, or within 72 hours of resignation, in
violation of California Labor Code sections 201 and 202.
102.
Defendants never tendered payment of all wages due and owing to
Plaintiff at any time. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is
entitled to recover waiting-time penalties at their daily rate of pay multiplied by the
number of days the wages went unpaid, up to a maximum of 30 days in an amount to
be proven at trial.

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1.
For compensatory damages, including but not limited to, lost back pay, plus

interest, lost fringe benefits and future lost earnings and fringe benefits, and

damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering, according to proof

allowed by law;

2.
Payment of all statutory obligations and penalties as required by law;

3.
An injunction against Defendants prohibiting it from future acts of
discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against Plaintiff;

4.
For punitive damages allowed by law;

5.
For an award to Plaintiff costs of suit incurred herein and reasonable
attorney’s fees;

6.
and,

For an award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;
7.

For such further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
18 DATED:
Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP

THE SAMPATH LAW FIRM
By: ________________________________
SUPREETA SAMPATH
J. BERNARD ALEXANDER III
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
KAYLEN SHERRELL BARKER

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 25 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby request trial by jury.
4 DATED:
Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP

THE SAMPATH LAW FIRM
By: ________________________________
SUPREETA SAMPATH
J. BERNARD ALEXANDER III
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
KAYLEN SHERRELL BARKER

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 27 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
January 27, Kaylen Barker
c/o The Sampath Law Firm, 1939 Harrison Street Suite Oakland, CA
RE:
Notice to Complainant
DFEH Matter Number: 202201-Right to Sue: Barker / Tesla, Inc. DBA Tesla Motors et al.
Dear Kaylen Barker:
Attached is a copy of your 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. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. If you do not have an attorney, you must serve the complaint yourself.
Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information
regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of
Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
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
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
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
January 27, RE:
Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
DFEH Matter Number: 202201-Right to Sue: Barker / Tesla, Inc. DBA Tesla Motors et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A
copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code
section 12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation
of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the
right to participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both
the employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged
with the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free
mediation program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s
Dispute Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate
whether they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a
civil action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time
period specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. You may
contact DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter
number indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 29 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
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 30 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
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
January 27, Kaylen Barker
c/o The Sampath Law Firm, 1939 Harrison Street Suite Oakland, CA RE:
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 202201-Right to Sue: Barker / Tesla, Inc. DBA Tesla Motors et al.
Dear Kaylen Barker:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective January 27, because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code section
12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the
California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to
participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both the
employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged with
the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free mediation
program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute
Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether
they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period
specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. Contact
DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter number
indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 31 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
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 32
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. 202201-
Kaylen Barker

Complainant,
vs.
Tesla, Inc. DBA Tesla Motors
45500 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, CA Staffmark Investment LLC DBA Advantage
Resourcing
5555 Auto Mall Parkway
Fremont, CA Respondents

1. Respondent Tesla, Inc. DBA Tesla Motors is an employer subject to suit under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).

2.Complainant is naming Staffmark Investment LLC DBA Advantage Resourcing business
as Co-Respondent(s).

3. Complainant Kaylen Barker, resides in the City of Oakland, State of CA.
4. Complainant alleges that on or about October 29, 2021, respondent took the
20 following adverse actions:

Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, color, sexual orientation.
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, color, sexual
orientation and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, reprimanded, denied any
employment benefit or privilege, other, denied or forced to transfer.

-1Complaint – DFEH No. 202201-
Date Filed: January 27,
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 33 1 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
of discrimination or harassment and as a result was terminated, reprimanded, denied any
2 employment benefit or privilege, other, denied or forced to transfer.
Additional Complaint Details: Claimant, an African American, gay employee of
4 Respondents reported complaints of racial and sexual orientation discrimination and
harassment on numerous occasions to Respondents and was ignored. The discrimination
5 and harassment included being called the N-word numerous times by a white coworker and
suffering other egregious racially charged verbal abuse, among other things. The conduct
escalated and Claimant was eventually struck by a white coworker with a hot grinding tool
and injured while the white coworker called Claimant a "Stupid, dumb, N----r, bitch."
Respondents fired and then rehired the white worker after the incident. Respondents
retaliated against and further harassed Claimant by: (1) failing to pay her for time worked,
(2) continually forcing her to sign a false document stating she was insubordinate, (3) cutting
her work hours short and (4) terminating her.

-2Complaint – DFEH No. 202201-
Date Filed: January 27,
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
DFEH-ENF 80 RS
Page 34 1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Supreeta Sampath, 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 January 27, 2022, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Oakland, CA

-3Complaint – DFEH No. 202201-
Date Filed: January 27,
Form 0T_157EAC345513 (Revised 12/21)
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?