There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 4
VINCENT CALDERONE (State Bar No. 164672)
CALDERONE LAW FIRM
2321 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 1265
El Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: (424) 348-8290
vcalderone@calemploymentattorney.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff, VINCENT SINGH
1
2
3
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
) Case No.
)
VINCENT SINGH, an individual,
) COMPLAINT FOR:
)
) 1. RACE /COLOR /ANCESTRY
DISCRIMINATION (GOVT.
Plaintiff,
)
CODE §12940, ET SEQ.);
)
) 2. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
vs.
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 3. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
TESLA, INC., a corporation; TESLA
)
MOTORS, INC., a corporation and DOES ) 4. RACE /COLOR /ANCESTRY
1-50, inclusive,
)
HARASSMENT (GOVT. CODE
)
§12940, ET SEQ.);
)
Defendants.
) 5. RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 6. DISABILITY HARASSMENT
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 7. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 8. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
)
INTERACTIVE PROCESS
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 9. RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE
§12940, et seq.);
)
) 10. FAILURE TO PREVENT
)
HARASSMENT AND
)
RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE
)
§12940, et seq.);
)
) 11. WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION (LABOR CODE
)
§6310);
)
1
COMPLAINTPage 2 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION (LABOR CODE
§1102.5);
13. FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD
MEDICAL INFORMATION (CIV.
CODE §§ 56.20, 56.35, 56.36; and
14. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY.
7
8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
10
11
PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh alleges as follows on knowledge as to himself and his own
acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters:
12
13
I.
1.
PARTIES
At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh (hereinafter,
14
“PLAINTIFF”) was an individual employed by Defendants Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors,
15
Inc. (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”) as a Production Associate.
16
PLAINTIFF’ job was to work in DEFENDANTS’ factory located at 47700 Kato Road, in
17
the City of Fremont and County of Alameda, State of California, assembling components for
18
electrical batteries. PLAINTIFF was, at all relevant times, a resident in the County of San
19
Joaquin, State of California. PLAINTIFF is of mixed racial heritage, including South Asian
20
(Indian), Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry. PLAINTIFF practices the
21
Christian faith.
22
2.
Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. were, and still are, corporations duly
23
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, are registered with the
24
Secretary of State of the State of California and are authorized to do business in the State of
25
California and are the joint employers of PLAINTIFF. At all times during the relevant time
26
period of liability, DEFENDANTS have done business within the County of Alameda, and
27
have, among other things, employed approximately 10,000 persons in the County of
28
2
COMPLAINTPage 3 1
Alameda, who have received wages and paychecks during the liability period, and
2
maintained a production facility of approximately 5.5 million square feet in the City of
3
Fremont, where PLAINTIFF worked, and maintain a significant corporate office, formerly
4
the corporate headquarters, in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara.
5
3.
At all material times herein mentioned each of the Defendants named in the
6
caption and each Doe Defendant was an agent, employee and/or partner of the remaining
7
Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the scope of such
8
agency, employment and/or partnership with the permission, authority and consent of his or
9
her co-Defendants.
10
4.
Each business entity of Defendants, whether corporate, partnership, joint
11
venture, unincorporated association, public entity, or other business entity of unknown form,
12
and whether named or sued by fictitious name, is and, at all times mentioned herein was, in
13
some manner involved in the ownership and/or operation of the Defendants’ corporations
14
herein. Each of the individual Defendants, whether named or sued by fictitious name,
15
whether acting in an individual capacity or within or without their capacity as managerial
16
agent, servant, employee, officer, director, partner, or joint venturer of each of the business
17
entity of Defendants aforementioned in committing the acts or omissions as alleged herein
18
which resulted in damage to PLAINTIFF, is and at all times mentioned herein was also in
19
some manner involved in the ownership and/or operation of said Defendants’ corporations if
20
any, and in doing the things herein alleged was acting with the permission and consent and/or
21
knowledge, authorization or ratification of each of the business entity Defendants mentioned
22
above, unless otherwise stated herein.
23
5.
PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
24
herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
25
names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of
26
said Defendants when the same has been ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes
27
and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some
28
3
COMPLAINTPage 4 1
manner for the acts complained of herein. Unless otherwise stated, all references to named
2
Defendants shall include the Doe Defendants as well.
II.
3
4
6.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFF was hired by DEFENDANTS through Indeed.com, an online
5
recruiting platform. During the interview and hiring process, PLAINTIFF informed
6
DEFENDANTS’ recruiter that he suffered from asthma. Once PLAINTIFF began working
7
for DEFENDANTS, his asthma malady was never brought up as a matter to be considered in
8
his work assignment until he complained about its being aggravated, as described in greater
9
depth, below.
10
7.
PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS on or about October 11, 2021.
11
PLAINTIFF was hired as a production associate. In the department where PLAINTIFF was
12
assigned, there are giant tub mixers that combine powders for making battery components.
13
PLAINTIFF was tasked with whisking the powder and then inserting it into a machine,
14
which was part of production line for making batteries used in DEFENDANTS’ electric
15
motor vehicles.
16
8.
During his employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF performed as
17
expected or better, except when he was punitively assigned to dysfunctional equipment that
18
limited his productivity, as described in greater depth, below.
19
9.
At the time, PLAINTIFF was unaware that he was being exposed to anode
20
powder, which caused him harmful health effects and aggravated his asthma. PLAINTIFF
21
first complained to his supervisor, Mr. Rohit Sharma (“Sharma”) about this; Sharma was
22
dismissive and argumentative in response to PLAINTIFF’s complaints. PLAINTIFF
23
continued to work mixing powders, despite the continued aggravation of his asthma.
24
10.
After spending about two months in this initial department mixing anode
25
powder, PLAINTIFF complained to his manager, Opinder Baines (“Baines”), orally about
26
his asthma condition as it worsened.
27
28
4
COMPLAINTPage 5 1
11.
Baines, who PLAINTIFF is informed and believes is also of Indian descent,
2
asked why PLAINTIFF wore a turban, and criticized his faith by telling him he is “not really
3
a Christian.”
4
12.
After approximately three months of employment with DEFENDANTS,
5
PLAINTIFF was moved to a different work area where automatic feeders that assisted with
6
mixing process were not properly working. PLAINTIFF had to manually mix the powder in
7
a larger feeder, which caused the anode powder to form a dust cloud above the mixture.
8
PLAINTIFF breathed in this dust, which caused him several health issues including hives,
9
nausea, migraines, shortness of breath, and severely exacerbated his asthma.
10
13.
In or around December 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisor,
11
Sharma, that the powder was causing him significant harm, that he already had asthma and
12
was suffering additional symptoms.
13
14.
Rather than address PLAINTIFF’s health concerns, Sharma mocked
14
PLAINTIFF, telling him to “stop crying like a baby.” Sharma also insulted PLAINTIFF due
15
to his multi-racial background, making comments like “just feed the powder, little mutt,” and
16
calling him “stupid” and “retarded.”
17
15.
After additional complaints by PLAINTIFF, Sharma told PLAINTIFF to get a
18
note from a doctor. PLAINTIFF went to his doctor at his local Kaiser Permanente hospital.
19
PLAINTIFF received a note from the doctor saying that due to his medical condition,
20
PLAINTIFF needed to stay away from the powder.
21
16.
PLAINTIFF returned to work the following day and gave the doctor’s note,
22
containing private medical information, to his team lead, a man known to him as Jack K.
23
Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that he would give the doctor’s note to a supervisor.
24
25
17.
A few minutes later, a coworker handed the doctor’s note to PLAINTIFF,
saying he found it on the floor, where it was covered in dirt and black powder.
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINTPage 6 1
18.
PLAINTIFF took the note to Sharma, explaining how it had been found on the
2
floor, and complained that his private medical information was being treated negligently.
3
Sharma ignored the complaints but took the note.
4
19.
The following day, Sharma informed PLAINTIFF that he would take the
5
doctor’s note to Human Resources and directed PLAINTIFF to continue working in the same
6
location with the noxious powders. PLAINTIFF suffered an outbreak of hives, a severe
7
migraine, and respiratory difficulties, but continued to work.
8
9
20.
On the third day after PLAINTIFF procured the doctor’s note, Sharma returned
it to him and informed him that he was required to deliver it to HR himself. PLAINTIFF
10
took a photo of the doctor’s note and emailed it to Lewis Botsford (“Botsford”), a senior HR
11
staffer with DEFENDANTS.
12
21.
Botsford did not respond until approximately 10 days later, two weeks after
13
PLAINTIFF received the doctor’s note, to inform PLAINTIFF that he was required to fill
14
out forms requesting accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In
15
the two weeks between PLAINTIFF’s securing the note to Botsford’s response, PLAINTIFF
16
was required to continue working in the same workspace with the same noxious powders that
17
the doctor told PLAINTIFF he should avoid—a fact of which Sharma was aware as soon as
18
PLAINTIFF received the doctor’s note.
19
22.
PLAINTIFF attempted to get the ADA application filled, but there was a
20
problem between PLAINTIFF’s doctor and DEFENDANTS’ HR department, the details of
21
which were never fully explained to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS made no further effort to
22
help PLAINTIFF resolve the problem and HR staff told him that they were not allowed to
23
help him fill out the paperwork.
24
23.
In or about mid-December 2021, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work with a
25
more toxic powder, which required him to dress in a papr hazmat suit. This made it difficult
26
for PLAINTIFF to breathe, causing additional flare-ups of his health problems. The air
27
filtration system that feeds air into the suit further aggravated his situation and triggered
28
6
COMPLAINTPage 7 1
asthma attacks. PLAINTIFF sent an email to Botsford complaining about this transfer, its
2
impact on his health, and his belief that the transfer was meant to be an act of harassment by
3
his supervisors. PLAINTIFF was transferred back to his regular position within a few days.
4
24.
While the problem with HR and the ADA application was ongoing,
5
PLAINTIFF continued to work in the same workspace with the same noxious powders,
6
which continued to cause him significant health problems. When PLAINTIFF complained to
7
his supervisors about the health problems, they continued to ignore his complaints, unless
8
they were belittling him for his health problems and making slurs about his mixed-race
9
heritage. PLAINTIFF complained to Botsford about these insults, but Botsford did not
10
11
respond.
25.
Upon Botsford’s failure to respond to PLAINTIFF’s complaints, PLAINTIFF
12
contacted Botsford’s superior, HR Manager Tracy Thomas (“Thomas”). After PLAINTIFF
13
contacted Thomas, Botsford responded finally. PLAINTIFF told Botsford that he believed
14
Sharma was being told of PLAINTIFF’s complaints about Sharma’s abusive behavior,
15
because Sharma began acting with greater hostility against PLAINTIFF.
16
26.
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to DEFENDANTS’
17
employee relations staffer Benita Patel (“Patel”) about the ongoing abuse by his superiors.
18
This abuse included racial taunts, calling him “carpet boy” and “brown boy” in reference to
19
his Asian heritage, while also telling him to “quit acting like a nigger” and “stop
20
complaining, it’s just powder.”
21
27.
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF was called into a meeting with
22
his supervisors Baines, Corona, and Sharma. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF was asked
23
why he refused to work with the more toxic powder. PLAINTIFF explained that the papr
24
hazmat suit and air filtration system made his breathing difficult and triggered asthma
25
attacks, which constitutes a bona fide complaint about workplace health and safety. Later
26
that day, PLAINTIFF received an email from Sharma purporting to memorialize the
27
28
7
COMPLAINTPage 8 1
meeting, but which grossly mischaracterized what had occurred and accused PLAINTIFF of
2
insubordination for refusing the assignment.
3
28.
Around this time, PLAINTIFF reached such a level of stress and anxiety that
4
he reached out directly to DEFENDANTS’ CEO Elon Musk to inform him about the
5
constant abuse, harassment, and retaliation he faced. Musk did not respond.
6
29.
Approximately two weeks after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford,
7
Thomas, and Patel, he was moved under a different supervisor, Omar Corona (“Corona”).
8
However, PLAINTIFF worked with the same noxious powder and his health condition
9
continued to suffer.
10
30.
PLAINTIFF regularly overheard Corona using racial and ethnic slurs toward
11
other employees, including telling a Caucasian employee, “Get back in there, whitey, you’re
12
acting like a nigger.” Corona continued to use abusive language and racial slurs against
13
PLAINTIFF, calling him “carpet boy” or “brown boy” no fewer than 20 times.
14
31.
Approximately one month after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford,
15
Thomas, and Patel, he was moved to another workspace where he was not required to work
16
with the noxious powders. His health condition steadily improved, including fewer
17
respiratory issues.
18
32.
The reprieve was short-lived, as PLAINTIFF was returned to the powder-
19
mixing position three weeks later. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately upon
20
his return.
21
33.
A short time after being reassigned to the powder mixing position, as his health
22
condition worsened, PLAINTIFF approached his team lead Jack K. and asked to go home on
23
a day when he was feeling especially ill. Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that if he left, he would
24
receive a “point” in DEFENDANTS’ attendance system. In this system, 10 points in a six-
25
month period is grounds for termination.
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINTPage 9 1
34.
In addition to continuing the disregard for PLAINTIFF’s health concerns, Jack
2
K. also continued the pattern and practice of racial hostility, including calling PLAINTIFF a
3
“terrorist” in reference to his South Asian heritage.
4
5
6
35.
On one such occasion, on or about January 3, 2022, PLAINTIFF was so upset
that he had to repair to a restroom to keep from breaking down publicly.
36.
As PLAINTIFF was returning to work from the restroom, he was approached
7
by Baines, who asked if PLAINTIFF were a “female,” as though that would be a reason for
8
him to spend so much time in the restroom. When PLAINTIFF responded that he was not
9
feeling well, Baines called him “a disgrace to Indians” and a “stupid Christian.”
10
37.
Later that day, PLAINTIFF sent Patel an email recounting the above incident
11
with Baines, describing it as an example of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation by his
12
supervisors. Not long after sending his email, PLAINTIFF received an email from Baines
13
threatening discipline for his use of the restroom. PLAINTIFF replied to Baines and the
14
other supervisors cc’d on the email that this was another incident of harassment,
15
intimidation, and retaliation.
16
38.
PLAINTIFF faced other incidents of harassment and retaliation, and specific
17
events meant to cause him public humiliation and ostracism. On at least three occasions,
18
PLAINTIFF’s department had pizza parties to which PLAINTIFF was not invited, and at
19
least one of which PLAINTIFF was specifically told he was excluded from and was barred
20
from entering the room.
21
39.
In or about early February 2022, PLAINTIFF was informed that he would be
22
transferred to the winding department. PLAINTIFF had not requested a transfer.
23
PLAINTIFF later learned that the same day he was transferred out of it, everybody in the
24
department was given a $2.00 per hour pay increase.
25
40.
In addition to being racially harassed and socially outcast, PLAINTIFF was
26
subjected to sabotage in his work. On at least three occasions, while PLAINTIFF was mixing
27
powder, he requested assistance from a coworker to replenish his powder supply. When the
28
9
COMPLAINTPage 10 1
coworker went to get more powder, the supervisor, Wade Bolinger (“Bolinger”), stopped the
2
coworker and engaged him in a conversation. Meanwhile, PLAINTIFF continued to yell to
3
the coworker that he was running out of powder. At some point, Baines came by to tell
4
PLAINTIFF that he was running low on powder and should have replenished his supply.
5
Before PLAINTIFF could explain that Bolinger was preventing the coworker from getting
6
more powder, Baines told PLAINTIFF he was doing a poor job and walked away.
7
41.
In the winding department, where DEFENDANTS transferred PLAINTIFF to
8
avoid paying him a $2.00 per hour wage increase, there are 12 machines that wind, but some
9
produce worse or better yields of “jelly rolls”—internal battery components—based on their
10
current state of repair. In addition to receiving insufficient training on the winding machines,
11
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was assigned to machines in various states of disrepair that
12
routinely produced a smaller number of jelly rolls. PLAINTIFF believes this was deliberate
13
and another attempt to sabotage his work.
14
42.
PLAINTIFF had to leave his work area about fifteen times per day to pick up
15
cathode and anode pancakes, which he had to retrieve from a warehouse on other side of
16
department. This effort constituted a five-minute walk to the supply, then sometimes a wait
17
on the material. On average, it was a 10-minute process followed by a five-minute walk back
18
to his workstation; he did this approximately 15 times per day. From that point, it took
19
additional five minutes to resupply and prepare his workstation to operate again.
20
43.
At least one time, Bolinger confronted PLAINTIFF, saying PLAINTIFF had
21
been missing for a long time. PLAINTIFF explained that he was resupplying and accounted
22
for his time, all tasks that fell within his scope of duties. Bolinger in response said he did not
23
care and told PLAINTIFF he was getting a verbal warning.
24
44.
The harassment continued with repeated accusations that PLAINTIFF was
25
unjustifiably away from his workstation when he was busy securing supplies necessary for
26
doing his work. Bolinger would call Baines, who would wait for PLAINTIFF, and upon his
27
return, falsely accuse him of going “missing” for two hours. PLAINTIFF would correctly
28
10
COMPLAINTPage 11 1
deny the accusation and direct Baines to the surveillance cameras to confirm his story. The
2
false accusation would stand, but without confirmation.
3
45.
At some point in early 2022, PLAINTIFF began to be followed by another
4
employee, Ali E., who was a supervisor or superior in a different department. On one
5
occasion, PLAINTIFF was away from his workstation, Ali E., without any apparent
6
authority to question PLAINTIFF’s whereabouts, sent PLAINTIFF a text message asking
7
him why he was not at his workstation. PLAINTIFF responded to Ali E. and said to leave
8
him alone. PLAINTIFF forwarded the text exchange to Baines, who responded with a
9
“laughing face” emoji.
10
46.
PLAINTIFF also faced disparate treatment on sick leave, as Bolinger and
11
Baines promised one thing but delivered another. On an occasion when PLAINTIFF was
12
feeling unwell at work and thought he might faint, he walked away from his workstation to
13
get a drink of water. When he did so, he was approached by Baines, who suggested that he
14
might be better off going home. After returning to work for about two hours, PLAINTIFF
15
determined that he could no longer work that day. PLAINTIFF approached Bolinger and said
16
he was not well and asked if he would get into trouble if he went home for the day. Bolinger
17
told PLAINTIFF that he would not get into any trouble.
18
47.
When PLAINTIFF returned to work, he was ordered to attend a department
19
meeting where attendance issues were addressed. PLAINTIFF was directly challenged about
20
the previous week’s incident and two others where he had to leave work for illness.
21
PLAINTIFF replied that he had asked Bolinger if there was any problem with going home
22
early and was told there was not; Bolinger denied this occurred. PLAINTIFF received
23
disciplinary write-ups for these absences.
24
48.
PLAINTIFF continued to be routinely assigned to winding machines that were
25
somehow faulty and did not produce at full capacity. While coworkers were rotated through
26
the machines, PLAINTIFF was ordered to use the faulty machines and was not provided a
27
28
11
COMPLAINTPage 12 1
winding partner which caused difficulty in the operations of the machines. Nonetheless, he
2
continued to reach or nearly reach his production quotas on a regular basis.
3
49.
PLAINTIFF was also subjected to public humiliation, including being singled
4
out for ostracism, when team leaders pointed him out to new hires as someone to avoid,
5
pointing to him and describing him as “the wrong crowd” and someone they “should not
6
hang out with.”
7
50.
After approximately three months in the winding department, PLAINTIFF
8
received a three-month review from Bolinger – the only performance review he received—
9
where he was criticized for failing to keep up with the production quotas. Bolinger
10
threatened PLAINTIFF that he would never advance in the company. PLAINTIFF was not
11
given a copy of the review.
12
51.
In or about July 2022, PLAINTIFF complained to Baines that Ali E. was
13
continuing to follow and harass him, including following him to the restroom, which Baines
14
denied. PLAINTIFF asked how many other employees were being similarly surveilled;
15
Baines did not respond to the question. PLAINTIFF asked if this was discrimination against
16
him; Baines again did not answer the question.
17
52.
In or about August 2022, PLAINTIFF overheard Ali E. say to another
18
employee words to the effect of “you’re being lazy. I thought Mexicans were supposed to
19
work harder.” Being part Mexican, PLAINTIFF took offense to this. He later complained to
20
HR about this and was led to believe that an investigation was undertaken.
21
53.
On or about August 6, 2022, upon learning that Bolinger was being transferred
22
to Texas, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Ali E., Bains, Bolinger, and others, stating he
23
discovered on an internal HR portal several writeups that needed to be corrected before
24
Bolinger left because some came under Bolinger’s supervision, and because Bollinger had
25
given PLAINTIFF permission to take requested time off that he was then written up for.
26
PLAINTIFF stated that he felt these writeups were in effort to push him out and to fire him,
27
that he felt retaliated against and might take matters higher up. PLAINTIFF stated that he
28
12
COMPLAINTPage 13 1
loved his job at Tesla and wanted to be a part of its future in sustainable energy.
2
PLAINTIFF received no response to this message.
3
54.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF wrote Aenoi V. Jones of Human
4
Resources in a higher division (“Jones”) that he tried to contact someone about his problems
5
with his supervisors but was being redirected to his direct HR contact with whom he did not
6
feel comfortable speaking because he believed that person communicated his complaints to
7
those he complained about and was requesting someone else to speak with about his
8
complaints.
9
55.
Jones replied on August 8, 2022, directing PLAINTIFF to reach out to the
10
Senior HR Manager, Nicole Burgers (“Burgers”), and provided him with her email address
11
and phone number.
12
56.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF called Burgers on the phone and told
13
her his work performance was being sabotaged, that he was experiencing discrimination and
14
harassment and told her about the investigation that he understood was started. Burgers told
15
PLAINTIFF she would look into the investigation.
16
57.
On or about September 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a text message to Burgers
17
stating that he has multiple writeups and just received a final writeup on the internal HR
18
portal. Burgers replied on September 9, 2022, stating she would look into it.
19
58.
On or about September 8 or 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a message to his direct
20
supervisors, HR, his HR manager’s manager, and their managers, totaling 10-11 recipients.
21
An investigator sent a message to PLAINTIFF stating she was working on the investigation
22
and asked him to give her more information, which he did.
23
59.
Sometime thereabout, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Thomas, his direct HR
24
Manager, but she did not open his message, which he confirmed through “read receipts” in
25
the messaging app. PLAINTIFF’s message had similar content to what he told Burgers.
26
Thomas did not respond.
27
28
13
COMPLAINTPage 14 60.
1
On or about September 23, 2022, PLAINTIFF was called on the phone by
2
Daniel Donenfeld, HR Partner, Vehicle Engineering & Cell Manufacturing Operations
3
(“Donenfeld”) and James Wall, who is the manager above Baines (“Wall”). Donenfeld left
4
PLAINTIFF a voice mail and Wall sent a message to him on an internal messaging app,
5
asking if they could schedule a call that day. PLAINTIFF confirmed, and they later spoke to
6
PLAINTIFF together and told him that due to safety reasons, PLAINTIFF’s status of
7
employment changed to termination and that it's a final decision that cannot be changed.
8
They also mentioned they reviewed the warnings on his profile and told PLAINTIFF to
9
email HR if he has any questions.
61.
10
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Donenfeld stating that his verbal and non-verbal
11
warnings were invalid, and Mr. Donenfeld replied “Hi Vincent, all allegations were raised to
12
appropriate parties and action is taken.”
62.
13
On or about October 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Donenfeld asking
14
the reason he was terminated. Donenfeld wrote back that “The reason for your termination is
15
because it is more likely than not that you violated Tesla's policy.”
63.
16
17
On or about October 21, 2022, PLAINTIFF replied to Mr. Donenfeld asking
which policy was violated. PLAINTIFF never received any reply from Mr. Donenfeld.
64.
18
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was terminated for pretextual reasons motivated by
19
discrimination based on race, religion, and disability, and in retaliation for complaining
20
about harassment and health and safety hazards.
65.
21
As a result of the unlawful conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 as set
22
forth in this Complaint, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages,
23
serious emotional suffering and damages, and other damages as will be proved at the time of
24
trial.
III.
25
26
27
28
66.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s attorney, Calderone Law Firm,
filed a verified complaint on behalf of Plaintiff with the California Department of Fair
14
COMPLAINTPage 15 1
Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) now referred to as the Civil Rights Department using the
2
DFEH online system, pursuant to Government Code section 12900 et seq., alleging that the
3
acts described in this complaint violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
4
Prior to the Complaint being submitted using the DFEH online system, Plaintiff verified the
5
contents of the complaint and gave his attorney’s permission to submit the verified complaint
6
on his behalf to the DFEH. The complaint was verified by Plaintiff pursuant to Government
7
Code 12900 et seq. The DFEH issued “right to sue” letter, a copy of which is attached hereto
8
marked as Exhibit “A.” Therefore, all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit
9
have been fulfilled.
10
11
12
13
14
15
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Racial /Color/Ancestry Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
67.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
68.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
16
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for racial, color, and ancestry
17
discrimination because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
18
69.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
19
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is of multi-racial
20
heritage, including Indian, Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry.
21
70.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or ancestry.
22
California Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment
23
practice “[f]or an employer, because of the race … color … [or] ancestry … of any person …
24
to discharge the person from employment … or to discriminate against the person in
25
compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
26
27
28
71.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
actions based on his race, color, or ancestry including, but not limited to, severe and
15
COMPLAINTPage 16 1
pervasive harassment of PLAINTIFF in his employment because of his race, including but
2
not limited to references to his Indian heritage, calling him “carpet boy” and “terrorist” and
3
“a disgrace to Indians”; refences to his Mexican heritage and use of insults like “lazy” and
4
harmful stereotypes like “Mexicans are supposed to work harder”; refences to his African-
5
American heritage, including repeated use of the epithet “nigger”; and references to his race
6
and color, generally, with slurs like “brown boy” and “little mutt.”
7
72.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive racial,
8
color, and ancestry discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received
9
no reprieve from the abusive treatment.
10
11
12
73.
PLAINTIFF’s multi-racial heritage was a motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
74.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
13
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
14
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
15
which will be proven at trial.
16
75.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
17
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
18
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
19
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
20
76.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
21
acts—including but not limited to those carried out by Baines, Bolinger, Corona, and
22
Sharma—were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were
23
directed or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for
24
PLAINTIFF’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to
25
constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling
26
PLAINTIFF to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an
27
example of DEFENDANTS.
28
16
COMPLAINTPage 17 1
77.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
2
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
3
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
4
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
5
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
V.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Religious Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
78.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
79.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
13
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for religious discrimination
14
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
15
80.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
16
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is an adherent of the
17
Christian faith.
18
81.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on religion. California
19
Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
20
an employer, because of the … religious creed . . . of any person . . . to discharge the person
21
from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms,
22
conditions or privileges of employment.”
23
82.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
24
actions based on his religion including, but not limited to, severe and pervasive harassment
25
of PLAINTIFF employment because of his religion, including but not limited to calling him
26
a “stupid Christian” and “not a real Christian.”
27
28
17
COMPLAINTPage 18 1
83.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive religious
2
discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from
3
the abusive treatment.
4
5
6
84.
PLAINTIFF’s religion was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
85.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
7
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
8
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
9
which will be proven at trial.
10
86.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
11
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
12
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
13
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
14
87.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANT’s and Does 1-50's
15
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
16
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
17
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
18
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
19
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
20
DEFENDANTS.
21
88.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
22
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
23
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
24
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
25
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
26
27
28
VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
18
COMPLAINTPage 19 1
2
3
89.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
90.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
4
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for disability discrimination
5
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
6
91.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
7
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF suffers from asthma,
8
which is recognized as a disability under the FEHA. See Ca. Dept. of Cor. v. State Personnel
9
Bd. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1601, generally. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to
10
DEFENDANTS.
11
92.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on disability. California
12
Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
13
an employer, because of the … physical disability. . . of any person . . . to discharge the
14
person from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in
15
terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
16
93.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
17
actions based on his physical disability including, but not limited to, severe and pervasive
18
harassment of PLAINTIFF employment because of his disability, including but not limited
19
to calling him “lazy,” questioning his manhood by asking if he was a “female,” telling him to
20
“quit crying like a baby,” minimizing his breathing difficulties because “it’s just powder,”
21
and other slights, insults, denigrations, and attempts to publicly humiliate him.
22
94.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive disability
23
discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from
24
the abusive treatment.
25
26
95.
PLAINTIFF’s disability was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
27
28
19
COMPLAINTPage 20 1
96.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
2
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
3
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
4
which will be proven at trial.
5
97.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
6
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
7
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
8
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
9
98.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
10
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
11
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
12
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
13
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
14
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
15
DEFENDANTS.
16
99.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
17
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
18
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
19
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
20
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
21
22
23
24
25
26
VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Racial/Color/Ancestry Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
100. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
20
COMPLAINTPage 21 1
101. DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
2
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for racial, color, and ancestry
3
harassment because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
4
102. At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
5
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is of multi-racial
6
heritage, including Indian, Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry.
7
103. The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on race, color, or ancestry.
8
California Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment
9
practice “[f]or an employer … because of the race … color … [or] ancestry … to harass an
10
11
employee ….”
104. DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
12
harassment of PLAINTIFF in his employment because of his race, color, and ancestry,
13
including but not limited to references to his Indian heritage, calling him “carpet boy” and
14
“terrorist” and “a disgrace to Indians”; refences to his Mexican heritage and use of insults
15
like “lazy” and harmful stereotypes like “Mexicans are supposed to work harder”; refences
16
to his African-American heritage, including repeated use of the epithet “nigger”; and
17
references to his race and color, generally, with slurs like “brown boy” and “little mutt.”
18
105. PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive racial
19
harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive
20
treatment.
21
22
23
106. PLAINTIFF’s multi-racial heritage was a substantially motivating reason for
the above-described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
107. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
24
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
25
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
26
proven at trial.
27
28
21
COMPLAINTPage 22 1
108. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
2
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
3
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
4
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
5
109. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
6
acts—including but not limited to those carried out by Baines, Bolinger, Corona, and
7
Sharma—were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were
8
directed or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for
9
PLAINTIFF’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to
10
constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling
11
PLAINTIFF to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an
12
example of DEFENDANTS.
13
110. The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
14
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
15
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
16
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
17
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Religious Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
111.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
112.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
24
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for religious harassment because
25
they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
26
113.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
27
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is an adherent of the
28
Christian faith.
22
COMPLAINTPage 23 1
114.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on religion. California
2
Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
3
an employer, because of … religious creed . . . to harass an employee ….”
4
115.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
5
harassment of PLAINTIFF employment because of his religion, including but not limited to
6
calling him a “stupid Christian” and “not a real Christian.”
7
116.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive religious
8
harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive
9
treatment.
10
11
12
117.
PLAINTIFF’s religion was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
118.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
13
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
14
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
15
proven at trial.
16
119.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
17
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
18
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
19
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
20
120.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
21
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
22
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
23
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
24
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
25
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
26
DEFENDANTS.
27
28
23
COMPLAINTPage 24 1
121.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
2
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
3
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
4
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
5
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
122.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
123.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
12
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for disability harassment because
13
they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
14
124.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
15
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF suffers from asthma,
16
which is recognized as a disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known
17
to DEFENDANTS.
18
125.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on disability. California
19
Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
20
an employer … because of … disability … to harass an employee….”
21
126.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
22
harassment of PLAINTIFF because of his disability, including but not limited to calling him
23
“lazy,” questioning his manhood by asking if he was a “female,” telling him to “quit crying
24
like a baby,” minimizing his breathing difficulties because “it’s just powder,” and other
25
slights, insults, denigrations, and attempts to publicly humiliate him.
26
27
28
127.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive harassment
he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive treatment.
24
COMPLAINTPage 25 1
2
3
128.
PLAINTIFF’s disability was a substantial motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
129.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
4
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
5
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
6
proven at trial.
7
130.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
8
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
9
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
10
11
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
131.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
12
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
13
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
14
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
15
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
16
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
17
DEFENDANTS.
18
132.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
19
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
20
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
21
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
22
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
23
24
25
26
27
28
X.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Accommodate in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
133.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
25
COMPLAINTPage 26 1
134.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
2
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to accommodate
3
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
4
135.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
5
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
6
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
7
136.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful failure to make reasonable accommodations for
8
disability. California Government Code Section 12940 (m)(1) provides it is an unlawful
9
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to make reasonable accommodation for
10
11
the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.”
137.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
12
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
13
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
14
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
15
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
16
DEFENDANTS.
17
138.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 failed and/or refused to make reasonable
18
accommodation to PLAINTIFF’s physical disability despite being aware of the doctor’s note
19
requiring PLAINTIFF to be taken out of the area where noxious powders were aggravating
20
his asthma. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that reasonable accommodations were
21
available, such as transfer to different departments or other vacancies that did not involve
22
mixing noxious powders that aggravated his asthma.
23
24
25
26
139.
DEFENDANTS failed and refused to accommodate PLAINTIFF’s disability
by transferring him to a position that would not aggravate his asthma.
140.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to reasonably accommodate PLAINTIFF’s
27
28
26
COMPLAINTPage 27 1
disability, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for
2
which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
141.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
142.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
143.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
144.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
145.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to engage in the
interactive process because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more
persons.
27
COMPLAINTPage 28 1
146.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
2
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
3
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
4
147.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful failure to engage is a good-faith interactive
5
process. California Government Code Section 12940 (n) provides it is an unlawful
6
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to engage in a timely, good faith,
7
interactive process with the employee … to determine effective reasonable accommodations,
8
if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee … with a
9
known physical or mental disability.”
10
148.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
11
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
12
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
13
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
14
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
15
DEFENDANTS.
16
149.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly sought to engage in a good-faith, interactive process
17
with DEFENDANTS to find a reasonable accommodation, but DEFENDANTS repeatedly
18
failed and/or refused to participate, unnecessarily delaying any response for weeks and
19
ultimately refusing to participate, citing DEFENDANTS’ formalistic rules to justify the
20
refusal to participate.
21
150.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 failed and/or refused to discuss making
22
reasonable accommodation to PLAINTIFF’s physical disability despite being aware of the
23
doctor’s note requiring PLAINTIFF to be taken out of the area where noxious powders were
24
aggravating his asthma.
25
151.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
26
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive
27
process to try to identify reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disability,
28
28
COMPLAINTPage 29 1
PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he
2
seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
152.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
153.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its’ managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
154.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
XII. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
155.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
156.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
25
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for retaliation because they are
26
employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
27
28
29
COMPLAINTPage 30 1
157.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
2
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
3
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
4
158.
California Government Code Section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for an
5
employer "to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person" because the
6
person has opposed practices forbidden by this part" or "because the person has filed a
7
complaint, testified, or assisted in proceeding under this part." The FEHA also prohibits
8
retaliation against employees seeking reasonable accommodations for disability. California
9
Government Code Section 12940 (m)(2) provides it is an unlawful employment practice
10
“[f]or an employer … covered by this part to … retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a
11
person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the
12
request was granted.”
13
159.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
14
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
15
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
16
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
17
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
18
DEFENDANTS.
19
160.
DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by engaging in a series of
20
violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized, being transferred
21
to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him followed at work,
22
harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions. PLAINTIFF was
23
regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible to meet his
24
production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews.
25
DEFENDANTS also retaliated against PLAINTIFF by terminating his employment,
26
substantially motivated by PLAINTIFF’s engaging in protected activity of complaining and
27
opposing harassing, and discriminatory conduct in the workplace.
28
30
COMPLAINTPage 31 1
161.
PLAINTIFF complained about these acts of retaliation to DEFENDANTS’ HR
2
and employee relations staff on many, many occasions. PLAINTIFF’s complaints did not
3
result in any action being taken against his tormenters.
4
162.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
5
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive
6
process to try to identify reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disability,
7
PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he
8
seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
9
163.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
10
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
11
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
12
will be proven at trial.
13
164.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
14
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
15
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
16
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
17
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
18
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
19
DEFENDANTS.
20
165.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
21
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
22
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
23
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
24
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
25
26
27
28
XIII. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation in Violation of California’s
Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
31
COMPLAINTPage 32 1
2
3
166.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
167.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
4
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to prevent harassment,
5
discrimination, and retaliation because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or
6
more persons.
7
168.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
8
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
9
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
10
169.
The FEHA requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment,
11
discrimination, and retaliation. See California Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1),
12
stating in part, “An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from
13
occurring.” California Government Code Section 12940 (k) provides it is an unlawful
14
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to
15
prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.”
16
170.
Throughout his employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF suffered
17
severe and pervasive harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on his religion, race,
18
disability, and requests for reasonable accommodation. This unlawful abuse took the form of
19
racial and religious slurs, abusive epithets, ostracism, mockery, public humiliation,
20
surveillance, and punitive assignment to faulty equipment resulting in inability to meet
21
production quotas which in turn led to negative performance reviews.
22
171.
PLAINTIFF complained about these acts of harassment, discrimination, and
23
retaliation to DEFENDANTS’ HR and employee relations staff on many, many occasions.
24
PLAINTIFF’s complaints did not result in any action being taken against his tormenters.
25
26
172.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct in
failing and/or refusing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
27
28
32
COMPLAINTPage 33 1
retaliation, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages
2
for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
173.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
174.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
175.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
XIV. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliation
(Labor Code §6310)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
19
20
21
22
23
24
176.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
177.
California Labor Code Section 6310 (a), which addresses workplace safety,
25
states, “No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee
26
because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint
27
to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting
28
33
COMPLAINTPage 34 1
the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their
2
representative.”
3
178.
California Labor Code Section 6310 (b) states, “Any employee who is
4
discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner
5
discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by their employer because
6
the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to … their employer, or their
7
representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in their employment or place
8
of employment … shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and
9
work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.”
10
179.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained to his supervisors about noxious powders
11
in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory difficulties, among other
12
health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor ordering that PLAINTIFF
13
be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were causing him harm by
14
aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to DEFENDANTS. These
15
acts by PLAINTIFF were protected conduct under Labor Code Section 6310 (a).
16
180.
DEFENDANTS retaliated and discriminated against PLAINTIFF by engaging
17
in a series of violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized,
18
being transferred to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him
19
followed at work, harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions.
20
PLAINTIFF was regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible
21
to meet his production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews.
22
Such acts of retaliation against PLAINTIFF for his making bona fide complaints about
23
matters of workplace safety violate Labor Code Section 6310 (a).
24
181.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
25
and intentional acts in retaliating against PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and
26
employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole pursuant
27
to Labor Code Section 6310 (b), the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
28
34
COMPLAINTPage 35 1
182.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
2
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
3
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
4
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
5
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
6
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
7
DEFENDANTS.
8
XV.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliation
(Labor Code §1102.5)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
9
10
11
183.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
13
184.
Labor Code Section 1102.5 (b) states, in pertinent part, “An employer … shall
14
not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information … to a person with authority
15
over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or
16
correct the violation or noncompliance, … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe
17
that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
18
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.”
19
185.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained to DEFENDANTS, by and through its’
20
HR department, which had the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation,
21
about the severe and pervasive discrimination, harassment, and retaliation he faced in the
22
workplace, which PLAINTIFF reasonably believed violates the FEHA, a state statute.
23
PLAINTIFF’s complaints to HR were therefore protected acts under Labor Code Section
24
1102.5.
25
186.
DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by engaging in a series of
26
violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized, being transferred
27
to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him followed at work,
28
35
COMPLAINTPage 36 1
harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions. PLAINTIFF was
2
regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible to meet his
3
production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews. Such acts of
4
retaliation against PLAINTIFF were substantially motivated by PLAINTIFF’s making bona
5
fide complaints to DEFENDANTS’ HR department for unlawful harassment, retaliation, and
6
discrimination in violation of the FEHA.
7
187.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
8
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
9
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
10
11
proven at trial.
188.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
12
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
13
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
14
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
15
189.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
16
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
17
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
18
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
19
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
20
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
21
DEFENDANTS.
22
190.
Labor Code §1102.5 (f) states, “In addition to other penalties, an employer that
23
is a corporation … is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
24
for each violation of this section.” PLAINTIFF seeks a $10,000 civil penalty pursuant to
25
California Labor Code §1102.5 (f) against DEFENDANTS.
26
27
28
36
COMPLAINTPage 37 1
191.
Labor Code §1102.5 (j) states, “The court is authorized to award reasonable
2
attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of these
3
provisions.”
XVI. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Safeguard Medical Information
(Civil Code §§ 56.20, 56.35, 56.36)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
4
5
6
7
8
9
192.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
193.
California Civil Code Section 56.20 (a) states, “Each employer who receives
10
medical information shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure the confidentiality and
11
protection from unauthorized use and disclosure of that information.”
12
194.
California Civil Code Section 56.35 states, “In addition to any other remedies
13
available at law, a patient whose medical information has been used or disclosed in violation
14
of Section 56.10, 56.104, 56.107, or 56.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 56.26 and who has
15
sustained economic loss or personal injury therefrom may recover compensatory damages,
16
punitive damages not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), attorney’s fees not to exceed
17
one thousand dollars ($1,000), and the costs of litigation.”
18
195.
California Civil Code Section 56.36(b) states, “In addition to any other
19
remedies available at law, an individual may bring an action against a person or entity who
20
has negligently released confidential information or records concerning him or her in
21
violation of this part, for either or both of the following:
22
(1) Except as provided in subdivision (e), nominal damages of one thousand
23
dollars ($1,000). In order to recover under this paragraph, it is not necessary
24
that the plaintiff suffered or was threatened with actual damages.
25
(2) The amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the patient.”
26
27
28
196.
PLAINTIFF entrusted to his team lead, Jack K., a note from his doctor
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
37
COMPLAINTPage 38 1
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma, which constitutes medical information that
2
DEFENDANTS were obligated to take care to keep private under Civil Code Section 56.20.
197.
3
The note was later returned to PLAINTIFF by a coworker who found it
4
discarded on the factory floor. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is inescapable that
5
Jack K. failed to take care and willfully or negligently disclosed PLAINTIFF’s private
6
medical information to an unknowable number of PLAINTIFF’s coworkers.
198.
7
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct,
8
by and through Jack K., PLAINTIFF has suffered damages for which he seeks to be made
9
whole pursuant to Civil Code Section 56.36(b), the exact amount of which will be proven at
10
11
12
trial.
199.
authorized by Civil Code Sections 56.35 and 56.36 (b).
XVII. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
13
14
15
16
17
PLAINTIFF additionally seeks nominal and punitive damages as permitted and
200.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
201.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 terminated PLAINTIFF in retaliation for his
18
complaints about harassment, discrimination, and retaliation he faced due to his race,
19
religion, and disability, and in retaliation for making complaints about health and safety
20
concerns in his workplace.
21
202.
In doing so, DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 violated of the public policy set
22
forth in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 12900,
23
et seq., which prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, religion, and
24
disability, and which prohibits retaliation against employees who complain about facing
25
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
26
27
28
203.
In doing so, DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 also violated of the public policy
set forth in Labor Code Section Sections 1102.5 and 6310, which protects the rights of
38
COMPLAINTPage 39 1
employees to bring bona fide complaints of unlawful conduct in the workplace and
2
workplace health and safety issues without fear of reprisal.
204.
3
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
4
described above, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered
5
damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at
6
trial.
7
205.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
8
conduct described above, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry,
9
embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. The amount of
10
11
damages of which will be proven at trial.
206.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
12
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
13
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-50 with a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s
14
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
15
oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
16
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
17
Defendants and Does 1-50.
18
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. For general damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
2. For special damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
3. For compensatory damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which
such damages are available;
4. For punitive damages, according to proof or each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
39
COMPLAINTPage 40 1
5. For pre-judgement and post-judgement interest according to law;
2
6. For reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action on those causes of action for
3
which such fees are recoverable under the law;
4
7. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
5
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
6
7
8
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CAUSES OF
ACTION ALLEGED HEREIN.
9
10
Dated: March 7, 2023
CALDERONE LAW FIRM
11
12
13
14
___________________________
Vincent Calderone
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
Vincent Singh
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40
COMPLAINTPage 41 EXHIBIT APage 42 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA j 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) i 800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh .ca.gov
February 10, 2023
Vincent Calderone
2321 Rosecrans Ave ., Suite 1265
El Segundo, CA 90245
RE:
Notice to Complainant's Attorney
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
Dear Vincent Calderone:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) 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, CRD will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. 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 CRD does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 43 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 195758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
February 10, 2023
RE:
Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil
Rights Department (CRD)) 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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD's Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD 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 CRD is requested or required.
Sincerely,
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 44 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 8D RS (Revised 12/22)Page 45 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH , DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) j 800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
February 10, 2023
Vincent Singh
RE:
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
Dear Vincent Singh:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective February 10, 2023 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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD'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
CRD's Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD matter number indicated
on the Right to Sue notice.
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 46 STATE OF CA LIF ORN IA
I
Business, Consumer Serv ices and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 195758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.ce nter@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
CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 47 1
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
Civil Rights Department
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code,§ 12900 et seq.)
3
4
5
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Vincent Singh
6
7
8
9
10
11
CRD No. 202302-19577802
Complainant,
vs .
Tesla, Inc.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
Tesla Motors, Inc.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
12
Respondents
13
14
15
1. Respondent Tesla, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code,§ 12900 et seq .).
16
2.Complainant is naming Tesla Motors, Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
17
3. Complainant Vincent Singh, resides in the City of, State of .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. Complainant alleges that on or about September 23, 2022, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's ancestry, national origin (includes
language restrictions), color, religious creed - includes dress and grooming practices,
disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), race (includes
hairstyle and hair texture).
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's ancestry, national
origin (includes language restrictions), color, religious creed - includes dress and grooming
practices, disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), race
(includes hairstyle and hair texture) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated,
denied hire or promotion, reprimanded , suspended, denied accommodation for religious
26
-1Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 48 1
beliefs, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer, denied
accommodation for a disability.
2
3
4
5
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation,
requested or used a religious accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination
or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion,
reprimanded, suspended, demoted, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or
forced to transfer, denied accommodation for a disability.
6
7
8
g
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
Additional Complaint Details: At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh
(hereinafter, "PLAINTIFF") was an individual employed by Defendant Tesla, Inc. and/or
Tesla Motor, Inc. (hereinafter, "DEFENDANT") as a Production Associate. PLAINTIFF' job
was to work in DEFENDANTS' factory located at 47700 Kato Road, in the City of Fremont
and County of Alameda, State of California, assembling components for electrical batteries.
PLAINTIFF was, at all relevant times, a resident in the County of San Joaquin, State of
California. PLAINTIFF is of mixed racial heritage, including South Asian (Indian), Mexican,
African-American, and Fijian ancestry. PLAINTIFF practices the Christian faith.
PLAINTIFF was hired by DEFENDANT through Indeed.com, an online recruiting platform.
During the interview and hiring process, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANT's recruiter that
he suffered from asthma. Qnce PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANT, his asthma
malady was never brought up as a matter to be considered in his work assignment until he
complained about its being aggravated, as described in greater depth, below.
PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANT on or about October 11, 2021. PLAINTIFF was
hired as a production associate. In the department where PLAINTIFF was assigned, there
are giant tub mixers that combine powders for making battery components. PLAINTIFF was
tasked with whisking the powder and then inserting it into a machine, which was part of
production line for making batteries used in DEFENDANT's electric motor vehicles.
During his employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF performed as expected or better,
except when he was punitively assigned to dysfunctional equipment that limited his
productivity, as described in greater depth, below.
At the time, PLAINTIFF was unaware that he was being exposed to anode powder, which
caused him harmful health effects and aggravated his asthma. PLAINTIFF first complained
to his supervisor, Mr. Rohit Sharma ("Sharma") about this; Sharma was dismissive and
argumentative in response to PLAINTIFF's complaints. PLAINTIFF continued to work mixing
powders, despite the continued aggravation of his asthma.
After spending about two months in this initial department mixing anode powder, PLAINTIFF
complained to his manager, Opinder Baines ("Baines"), orally about his asthma condition as
it worsened.
Baines, who PLAINTIFF is informed and believes is also of Indian descent, asked why
PLAINTIFF wore a turban, and criticized his faith by telling him he is "not really a Christian."
After approximately three months of employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF was moved
to a different work area where automatic feeders that assisted with mixing process were not
properly working. PLAINTIFF had to manually mix the powder in a larger feeder, which
caused the anode powder to form a dust cloud above the mixture. PLAINTIFF breathed in
26
-2Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 49 this dust, which caused him several health issues including hives, nausea, migraines,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shortness of breath, and severely exacerbated his asthma.
In or around December 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisor, Sharma, that the
powder was causing him significant harm, that he already had asthma and was suffering
additional symptoms.
Rather than address PLAINTIFF's health concerns, Sharma mocked PLAINTIFF, telling him
to "stop crying like a baby." Sharma also insulted PLAINTIFF due to his multi-racial
background, making comments like "just feed the powder, little mutt," and calling him
"stupid" and "retarded."
After additional complaints by PLAINTIFF, Sharma told PLAINTIFF to get a note from a
doctor. PLAINTIFF went to his doctor at his local Kaiser Permanente hospital. PLAINTIFF
received a note from the doctor saying that due to his medical condition, PLAINTIFF needed
to stay away from the powder.
PLAINTIFF returned to work the following day and gave the doctor's note, containing private
medical information, to his team lead, a man known to him as Jack K. Jack K. told
PLAINTIFF that he would give the doctor's note to a supervisor.
A few minutes later, a coworker handed the doctor's note to PLAINTIFF, saying he found it
on the floor, where it was covered in dirt and black powder.
PLAINTIFF took the note to Sharma, explaining how it had been found on the floor, and
complained that his private medical information was being treated negligently. Sharma
ignored the complaints but took the note.
The following day, Sharma informed PLAINTIFF that he would take the doctor's note to
Human Resources and directed PLAINTIFF to continue working in the same location with
the noxious powders. PLAINTIFF suffered an outbreak of hives, a severe migraine, and
respiratory difficulties, but continued to work.
On the third day after PLAINTIFF procured the doctor's note, Sharma returned it to him and
informed him that he was required to deliver it to HR himself. PLAINTIFF took a photo of the
doctor's note and emailed it to Lewis Botsford ("Botsford"), a senior HR staffer with
DEFENDANT.
Botsford did not respond until approximately 10 days later, two weeks after PLAINTIFF
received the doctor's note, to inform PLAINTIFF that he was required to fill out forms
requesting accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In the two
weeks between PLAINTIFF's securing the note to Botsford's response, PLAINTIFF was
required to continue working in the same workspace with the same noxious powders that
the doctor told PLAINTIFF he should avoid-a fact of which Sharma was aware as soon as
PLAINTIFF received the doctor's note.
PLAINTIFF attempted to get the ADA application filled, but there was a problem between
PLAINTIFF's doctor and DEFENDANT's HR department, the details of which were never
fully explained to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT made no further effort to help PLAINTIFF
resolve the problem and HR staff told him that they were not allowed to help him fill out the
paperwork.
In or about mid-December 2021, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work with a more toxic
powder, which required him to dress in a papr hazmat suit. This made it difficult for
PLAINTIFF to breathe, causing additional flare-ups of his health problems. The air filtration
system that feeds air into the suit further aggravated his situation and triggered asthma
attacks. PLAINTIFF sent an email to Botsford complaining about this transfer, its impact on
26
-3Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 50 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
his health, and his belief that the transfer was meant to be an act of harassment by his
supervisors. PLAINTIFF was transferred back to his regular position within a few days.
While the problem with HR and the ADA appl ication was ongoing, PLAINTIFF continued to
work in the same workspace with the same noxious powders, which continued to cause him
significant health problems. When PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisors about the
health problems, they continued to ignore his complaints, unless they were belittling him for
his health problems and making slurs about his mixed-race heritage. PLAINTIFF complained
to Botsford about these insults, but Botsford did not respond .
Upon Botsford's failure to respond to PLAINTIFF's complaints, PLAINTIFF contacted
Botsford's superior, HR Manager Tracy Thomas ("Thomas"). After PLAINTIFF contacted
Thomas, Botsford responded finally. PLAINTIFF told Botsford that he believed Sharma was
being told of PLAINTIFF's complaints about Sharma's abusive behavior, because Sharma
began acting with greater hostility against PLAINTIFF.
On or about December 27, 2021 , PLAINTIFF complained to DEFENDANT's employee
relations staffer Benita Patel ("Patel") about the ongoing abuse by his superiors. This abuse
included racial taunts , calling him "carpet boy" and "brown boy" in reference to his Asian
heritage, while also telling him to "quit acting like a nigger" and "stop complain ing, it's just
powder."
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF was called into a meeting with his supervisors
Baines, Corona, and Sharma. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF was asked why he refused to
work with the more toxic powder. PLAINTIFF explained that the papr hazmat suit and air
filtration system made his breathing difficult and triggered asthma attacks, which constitutes
a bona fide complaint about workplace health and safety. Later that day, PLAINTIFF
received an email from Sharma purporting to memorialize the meeting, but which grossly
mischaracterized what had occurred and accused PLAINTIFF of insubordination for refusing
the assignment.
Around this time, PLAINTIFF reached such a level of stress and anxiety that he reached out
directly to DEFENDANT's CEO Elon Musk to inform him about the constant abuse,
harassment, and retaliation he faced . Musk did not respond.
Approximately two weeks after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford, Thomas, and
Patel, he was moved under a different supervisor, Omar Corona ("Corona"). However,
PLAINTIFF worked with the same noxious powder and his health condition continued to
suffer.
PLAINTIFF regularly overheard Corona using racial and ethnic slurs toward other
employees, including telling a Caucasian employee, "Get back in there, whitey, you're acting
like a nigger." Corona continued to use abusive language and racial slurs against
PLAINTIFF, calling him "carpet boy" or "brown boy" no fewer than 20 times .
Approximately one month after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford, Thomas, and
Patel , he was moved to another workspace where he was not required to work with the
noxious powders. His health condition steadily improved , including fewer respiratory issues.
The reprieve was short-lived, as PLAINTIFF was returned to the powder-mixing position
three weeks later. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately on his return .
A short time after being reassigned to the powder mixing position, as his health condition
worsened, PLAINTIFF approached his team lead Jack K. and asked to go home on a day
when he was feeling especially ill. Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that if he left, he would receive a
25
26
-4-
Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed : February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 51 1
"point" in DEFENDANT's attendance system. In this system, 10 points in a six-month period
is grounds for termination.
2 In addition to continuing the disregard for PLAINTIFF's health concerns, Jack K. also
continued the pattern and practice of racial hostility, including calling PLAINTIFF a "terrorist"
in reference to his South Asian heritage.
On one such occasion, on or about January 3, 2022, PLAINTIFF was so upset that he had
to repair to a restroom to keep from breaking down publicly.
As PLAINTIFF was returning to work from the restroom, he was approached by Baines , who
asked if PLAINTIFF was a "female," as though that would be a reason for him to spend so
much time in the restroom. When PLAINTIFF responded that he was not feeling well, Baines
6
called him "a disgrace to Indians" and a "stupid Christian."
7 Later that day, PLAINTIFF sent Patel an email recounting the above incident with Baines,
describing it as an example of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation by his supervisors.
8 Not long after sending his email, PLAINTIFF received an email from Baines threatening
discipline for his use of the restroom. PLAINTIFF replied to Baines and the other supervisors
g cc'd on the email that this was another incident of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation.
PLAINTIFF faced other incidents of harassment and retaliation, and specific events meant
to cause him public humiliation and ostracism. On least three occasions, PLAINTIFF's
department had pizza parties to which PLAINTIFF was not invited, and at least one of which
11 PLAINTIFF was specifically told he was excluded from and was barred from entering the
room.
12 In or about early February 2022, PLAINTIFF was informed that he would be transferred to
the winding department. PLAINTIFF had not requested a transfer. PLAINTIFF later learned
that the same day he was transferred out of it, everybody in the department was given a
$2.00 per hour pay increase.
14
In addition to being racially harassed and socially outcast, PLAINTIFF was subjected to
sabotage in his work. On at least three occasions, while PLAINTIFF was mixing powder, he
15
requested assistance from a coworker to replenish his powder supply. When the coworker
went
to get more powder, the supervisor, Wade Bolinger ("Bolinger"), stopped the coworker
16
and engaged him in a conversation. Meanwhile, PLAINTIFF continued to yell to the
coworker that he was running out of powder. At some point, Baines came by to tell
PLAINTIFF that he was running low on powder and should have replenished his supply.
18 Before PLAINTIFF could explain that Bolinger was preventing the coworker from getting
more powder, Baines told PLAINTIFF he was doing a poor job and walked away.
19 In the winding department, where DEFENDANT transferred PLAINTIFF to avoid paying him
a $2.00 per hour wage increase, there are 12 machines that wind, but some produce worse
or better yields of "jelly rolls"-internal battery components-based on their current state of
repair. In addition to receiving insufficient training on the winding machines, PLAINTIFF
alleges that he was assigned to machines in various states of disrepair that routinely
produced a smaller number of jelly rolls. PLAINTIFF believes this was deliberate and
another attempt to sabotage his work.
PLAINTIFF had to leave his work area about 15 times per day to pick up cathode and anode
23
pancakes, which he had to retrieve from a warehouse on other side of department. This
effort constituted a five-minute walk to the supply, then sometimes a wait on the material. On
24
average, it was a 10-minute process followed by a five-minute walk back to his workstation;
25
26
-5Complaint - CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 52 he did this approximately 15 times per day. From that point, it took additional five minutes to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
resupply and prepare his workstation to operate again.
At least one time, Bolinger confronted PLAINTIFF, saying been missing for a long time.
PLAINTIFF explained that he was resupplying and accounted for his time, all tasks that fell
within his scope of duties. Bolinger in response said he did not care and told PLAINTIFF he
was getting a verbal warning.
The harassment continued with repeated accusations that PLAINTIFF was unjustifiably
away from his workstation when he was busy securing supplies necessary for doing his
work. Bolinger would call Baines, who would wait for PLAINTIFF, and upon his return falsely
accuse him of going "missing" for two hours. PLAINTIFF would correctly deny the
accusation and direct Baines to the surveillance cameras to confirm his story. The false
accusation would stand, but without confirmation.
At some point in early 2022, PLAINTIFF began to be followed by another employee, Ali E.,
who was a supervisor or superior in a different department. On one occasion, PLAINTIFF
was away from his workstation, Ali E., without any apparent authority to question
PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, sent PLAINTIFF a text message asking him why he was not at
his workstation. PLAINTIFF responded to Ali E. and said to leave him alone. PLAINTIFF
forwarded the text exchange to Baines, who responded with a "laughing face" emoji.
PLAINTIFF also faced disparate treatment on sick leave, as Bolinger and Baines promised
one thing but delivered another. On an occasion when PLAINTIFF was feeling unwell at
work and thought he might faint, he walked away from his workstation to get a drink of
water. When he did so, he was approached by Baines, who suggested that he might be
better off going home. After returning to work for about two hours, PLAINTIFF determined
that he could no longer work that day. PLAINTIFF approached Bolinger and said he was not
well and asked if he would get into trouble if he went home for the day. Bolinger told
PLAINTIFF that he would not get into any trouble.
When PLAINTIFF returned to work, he was ordered to attend a department meeting where
attendance issues were addressed. PLAINTIFF was directly challenged about the previous
week's incident and two others where he had to leave work for illness. PLAINTIFF replied
that he had asked Bolinger if there was any problem with going home early and was told
there was not; Bolinger denied this occurred. PLAINTIFF received disciplinary write-ups for
these absences.
PLAINTIFF continued to be routinely assigned to winding machines that were somehow
faulty and did not produce at full capacity. While coworkers were rotated through the
machines, PLAINTIFF was ordered to use the faulty machines and was not provided a
winding partner which caused difficulty in the operations of the machines. Nonetheless, he
continued to reach or nearly reach his production quotas on a regular basis.
PLAINTIFF was also subjected to public humiliation, including being singled out for
ostracism, when team leaders pointed him out to new hires as someone to avoid, pointing to
him and describing him as "the wrong crowd" and someone they "should not hang out with."
After approximately three months in the winding department, PLAINTIFF received a threemonth review from Bolinger - the only performance review he received-where he was
criticized for failing to keep up with the production quotas. Bolinger threatened PLAINTIFF
that he would never advance in the company. PLAINTIFF was not given a copy of the
review.
25
26
-6Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 53 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In or about July 2022, PLAINTIFF complained to Baines that Ali E. was continuing to follow
and harass him, including following him to the restroom, which Baines denied. PLAINTIFF
asked how many other employees were being similarly surveilled; Baines did not respond to
the question. PLAINTIFF asked if this was discrimination against him; Baines again did not
answer the question.
In or about August 2022, PLAINTIFF overheard Ali E. say to another employee words to the
effect of "you're being lazy. I thought Mexicans were supposed to work harder." Being part
Mexican, PLAINTIFF took offense to this. He later complained to HR about this and was led
to believe that an investigation was undertaken.
On or about August 6, 2022, upon learning that Bolinger was being transferred to Texas,
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Ali E., Bains, Bolinger, and others, stating he discovered on
an internal HR portal several writeups that needed to be corrected before Bolinger left
because some came under Bolinger's supervision, and because Bollinger had given
PLAINTIFF permission to take requested time off that he was then written up for. PLAINTIFF
stated that he felt these writeups were in effort to push him out and to fire him, that he felt
retaliated against and might take matters higher up. PLAINTIFF stated that he loved his job
at Tesla and wanted to be a part of its future in sustainable energy. PLAINTIFF received no
response to this message.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF wrote Aenoi V. Jones of Human Resources in a
higher division ("Jones") that he tried to contact someone about his problems with his
supervisors but was being redirected to his direct HR contact with whom he did not feel
comfortable speaking because he believed that person communicated his complaints to
those he complained about and was requesting someone else to speak with about his
complaints.
Jones replied on August 8, 2022, directing PLAINTIFF to reach out to the Senior HR
Manager, Nicole Burgers ("Burgers"), and provided him with her email address and phone
number.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF called Burgers on the phone and told her his work
performance was being sabotaged, that he was experience discrimination and harassment
and told her about the investigation that he understood was started. Burgers told PLAINTIFF
she would look into the investigation.
On or about September 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a text message to Burgers stating that he
has multiple writeups and just received a final writeup on the internal HR portal. Burgers
replied on September 9, 2022, stating she would look into it.
On or about September 8 or 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a message to his direct supervisors,
HR, his HR manager's manager, and their managers, totaling 10-11 recipients. An
investigator sent a message to PLAINTIFF stating she was working on the investigation and
asked him to give her more information, which he did.
Sometime thereabout, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Thomas, his direct HR Manager, but
she did not open his message, which he confirmed through "read receipts" in the messaging
app. PLAINTIFF's message had similar content to what he told Burgers. Thomas did not
respond.
On or about September 23, 2022, PLAINTIFF was called on the phone by Daniel Donenfeld,
HR Partner, Vehicle Engineering & Cell Manufacturing Operations ("Donenfeld") and James
Wall, who is the manager above Baines ("Wall"). Donenfeld left PLAINTIFF a voice mail and
Wall sent a message to him on an internal messaging app, asking if they could schedule a
26
-7Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 54 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
call that day. PLAINTIFF confirmed, and they later spoke to PLAINTIFF together and told
him that due to safety reasons, PLAINTIFF's status of employment changed to termination
and that it's a final decision that cannot be changed. They also mentioned they reviewed the
warnings on his profile, and told PLAINTIFF to email HR if he has any questions.
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Donenfeld stating that his verbal and non-verbal warnings
were invalid, and Mr. Donenfeld replied Hi Vincent, all allegations were raised to appropriate
parties and action is taken.
On or about October 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Donenfeld asking the reason he
was terminated . Donenfeld wrote back that "The reason for your termination is because it is
more likely than not that you violated Tesla's policy."
On or about October 21, 2022, PLAINTIFF replied to Mr. Donenfeld asking which policy was
violated. PLAINTIFF never received any reply from Mr. Donenfeld.
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was terminated for pretextual reasons motivated by
discrimination based on race, religion, and disability, and in retaliation for complaining about
harassment and health and safety hazards.
As a result of the unlawful conduct by DEFENDANT and Does 1-50 as set forth in this
Complaint, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, serious
emotional suffering and damages, and other damages as will be proved at the time of trial.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-8Complaint - CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)Page 55 1 VERIFICATION
2
3
4
5
6
I, Vincent Singh, am the Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read
the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own
knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
On February 10, 2023, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Stockton, CA
7
8
9
\
Vincent sin gh (Feb 13, 2023 10:39 PST)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-911---------------------------------~
Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed : February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
4
VINCENT CALDERONE (State Bar No. 164672)
CALDERONE LAW FIRM
2321 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 1265
El Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: (424) 348-8290
vcalderone@calemploymentattorney.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff, VINCENT SINGH
1
2
3
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
) Case No.
)
VINCENT SINGH, an individual,
) COMPLAINT FOR:
)
) 1. RACE /COLOR /ANCESTRY
DISCRIMINATION (GOVT.
Plaintiff,
)
CODE §12940, ET SEQ.);
)
) 2. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
vs.
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 3. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
TESLA, INC., a corporation; TESLA
)
MOTORS, INC., a corporation and DOES ) 4. RACE /COLOR /ANCESTRY
1-50, inclusive,
)
HARASSMENT (GOVT. CODE
)
§12940, ET SEQ.);
)
Defendants.
) 5. RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 6. DISABILITY HARASSMENT
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 7. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 8. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE
)
INTERACTIVE PROCESS
)
(GOVT. CODE §12940, et seq.);
)
) 9. RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE
§12940, et seq.);
)
) 10. FAILURE TO PREVENT
)
HARASSMENT AND
)
RETALIATION (GOVT. CODE
)
§12940, et seq.);
)
) 11. WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION (LABOR CODE
)
§6310);
)
1
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 3
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION (LABOR CODE
§1102.5);
13. FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD
MEDICAL INFORMATION (CIV.
CODE §§ 56.20, 56.35, 56.36; and
14. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY.
7
8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
10
11
PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh alleges as follows on knowledge as to himself and his own
acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters:
12
13
I.
1.
PARTIES
At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh (hereinafter,
14
“PLAINTIFF”) was an individual employed by Defendants Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors,
15
Inc. (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”) as a Production Associate.
16
PLAINTIFF’ job was to work in DEFENDANTS’ factory located at 47700 Kato Road, in
17
the City of Fremont and County of Alameda, State of California, assembling components for
18
electrical batteries. PLAINTIFF was, at all relevant times, a resident in the County of San
19
Joaquin, State of California. PLAINTIFF is of mixed racial heritage, including South Asian
20
(Indian), Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry. PLAINTIFF practices the
21
Christian faith.
22
2.
Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. were, and still are, corporations duly
23
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, are registered with the
24
Secretary of State of the State of California and are authorized to do business in the State of
25
California and are the joint employers of PLAINTIFF. At all times during the relevant time
26
period of liability, DEFENDANTS have done business within the County of Alameda, and
27
have, among other things, employed approximately 10,000 persons in the County of
28
2
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 4
1
Alameda, who have received wages and paychecks during the liability period, and
2
maintained a production facility of approximately 5.5 million square feet in the City of
3
Fremont, where PLAINTIFF worked, and maintain a significant corporate office, formerly
4
the corporate headquarters, in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara.
5
3.
At all material times herein mentioned each of the Defendants named in the
6
caption and each Doe Defendant was an agent, employee and/or partner of the remaining
7
Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the scope of such
8
agency, employment and/or partnership with the permission, authority and consent of his or
9
her co-Defendants.
10
4.
Each business entity of Defendants, whether corporate, partnership, joint
11
venture, unincorporated association, public entity, or other business entity of unknown form,
12
and whether named or sued by fictitious name, is and, at all times mentioned herein was, in
13
some manner involved in the ownership and/or operation of the Defendants’ corporations
14
herein. Each of the individual Defendants, whether named or sued by fictitious name,
15
whether acting in an individual capacity or within or without their capacity as managerial
16
agent, servant, employee, officer, director, partner, or joint venturer of each of the business
17
entity of Defendants aforementioned in committing the acts or omissions as alleged herein
18
which resulted in damage to PLAINTIFF, is and at all times mentioned herein was also in
19
some manner involved in the ownership and/or operation of said Defendants’ corporations if
20
any, and in doing the things herein alleged was acting with the permission and consent and/or
21
knowledge, authorization or ratification of each of the business entity Defendants mentioned
22
above, unless otherwise stated herein.
23
5.
PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
24
herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
25
names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of
26
said Defendants when the same has been ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes
27
and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some
28
3
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 5
1
manner for the acts complained of herein. Unless otherwise stated, all references to named
2
Defendants shall include the Doe Defendants as well.
II.
3
4
6.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PLAINTIFF was hired by DEFENDANTS through Indeed.com, an online
5
recruiting platform. During the interview and hiring process, PLAINTIFF informed
6
DEFENDANTS’ recruiter that he suffered from asthma. Once PLAINTIFF began working
7
for DEFENDANTS, his asthma malady was never brought up as a matter to be considered in
8
his work assignment until he complained about its being aggravated, as described in greater
9
depth, below.
10
7.
PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANTS on or about October 11, 2021.
11
PLAINTIFF was hired as a production associate. In the department where PLAINTIFF was
12
assigned, there are giant tub mixers that combine powders for making battery components.
13
PLAINTIFF was tasked with whisking the powder and then inserting it into a machine,
14
which was part of production line for making batteries used in DEFENDANTS’ electric
15
motor vehicles.
16
8.
During his employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF performed as
17
expected or better, except when he was punitively assigned to dysfunctional equipment that
18
limited his productivity, as described in greater depth, below.
19
9.
At the time, PLAINTIFF was unaware that he was being exposed to anode
20
powder, which caused him harmful health effects and aggravated his asthma. PLAINTIFF
21
first complained to his supervisor, Mr. Rohit Sharma (“Sharma”) about this; Sharma was
22
dismissive and argumentative in response to PLAINTIFF’s complaints. PLAINTIFF
23
continued to work mixing powders, despite the continued aggravation of his asthma.
24
10.
After spending about two months in this initial department mixing anode
25
powder, PLAINTIFF complained to his manager, Opinder Baines (“Baines”), orally about
26
his asthma condition as it worsened.
27
28
4
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 6
1
11.
Baines, who PLAINTIFF is informed and believes is also of Indian descent,
2
asked why PLAINTIFF wore a turban, and criticized his faith by telling him he is “not really
3
a Christian.”
4
12.
After approximately three months of employment with DEFENDANTS,
5
PLAINTIFF was moved to a different work area where automatic feeders that assisted with
6
mixing process were not properly working. PLAINTIFF had to manually mix the powder in
7
a larger feeder, which caused the anode powder to form a dust cloud above the mixture.
8
PLAINTIFF breathed in this dust, which caused him several health issues including hives,
9
nausea, migraines, shortness of breath, and severely exacerbated his asthma.
10
13.
In or around December 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisor,
11
Sharma, that the powder was causing him significant harm, that he already had asthma and
12
was suffering additional symptoms.
13
14.
Rather than address PLAINTIFF’s health concerns, Sharma mocked
14
PLAINTIFF, telling him to “stop crying like a baby.” Sharma also insulted PLAINTIFF due
15
to his multi-racial background, making comments like “just feed the powder, little mutt,” and
16
calling him “stupid” and “retarded.”
17
15.
After additional complaints by PLAINTIFF, Sharma told PLAINTIFF to get a
18
note from a doctor. PLAINTIFF went to his doctor at his local Kaiser Permanente hospital.
19
PLAINTIFF received a note from the doctor saying that due to his medical condition,
20
PLAINTIFF needed to stay away from the powder.
21
16.
PLAINTIFF returned to work the following day and gave the doctor’s note,
22
containing private medical information, to his team lead, a man known to him as Jack K.
23
Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that he would give the doctor’s note to a supervisor.
24
25
17.
A few minutes later, a coworker handed the doctor’s note to PLAINTIFF,
saying he found it on the floor, where it was covered in dirt and black powder.
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 7
1
18.
PLAINTIFF took the note to Sharma, explaining how it had been found on the
2
floor, and complained that his private medical information was being treated negligently.
3
Sharma ignored the complaints but took the note.
4
19.
The following day, Sharma informed PLAINTIFF that he would take the
5
doctor’s note to Human Resources and directed PLAINTIFF to continue working in the same
6
location with the noxious powders. PLAINTIFF suffered an outbreak of hives, a severe
7
migraine, and respiratory difficulties, but continued to work.
8
9
20.
On the third day after PLAINTIFF procured the doctor’s note, Sharma returned
it to him and informed him that he was required to deliver it to HR himself. PLAINTIFF
10
took a photo of the doctor’s note and emailed it to Lewis Botsford (“Botsford”), a senior HR
11
staffer with DEFENDANTS.
12
21.
Botsford did not respond until approximately 10 days later, two weeks after
13
PLAINTIFF received the doctor’s note, to inform PLAINTIFF that he was required to fill
14
out forms requesting accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In
15
the two weeks between PLAINTIFF’s securing the note to Botsford’s response, PLAINTIFF
16
was required to continue working in the same workspace with the same noxious powders that
17
the doctor told PLAINTIFF he should avoid—a fact of which Sharma was aware as soon as
18
PLAINTIFF received the doctor’s note.
19
22.
PLAINTIFF attempted to get the ADA application filled, but there was a
20
problem between PLAINTIFF’s doctor and DEFENDANTS’ HR department, the details of
21
which were never fully explained to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS made no further effort to
22
help PLAINTIFF resolve the problem and HR staff told him that they were not allowed to
23
help him fill out the paperwork.
24
23.
In or about mid-December 2021, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work with a
25
more toxic powder, which required him to dress in a papr hazmat suit. This made it difficult
26
for PLAINTIFF to breathe, causing additional flare-ups of his health problems. The air
27
filtration system that feeds air into the suit further aggravated his situation and triggered
28
6
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 8
1
asthma attacks. PLAINTIFF sent an email to Botsford complaining about this transfer, its
2
impact on his health, and his belief that the transfer was meant to be an act of harassment by
3
his supervisors. PLAINTIFF was transferred back to his regular position within a few days.
4
24.
While the problem with HR and the ADA application was ongoing,
5
PLAINTIFF continued to work in the same workspace with the same noxious powders,
6
which continued to cause him significant health problems. When PLAINTIFF complained to
7
his supervisors about the health problems, they continued to ignore his complaints, unless
8
they were belittling him for his health problems and making slurs about his mixed-race
9
heritage. PLAINTIFF complained to Botsford about these insults, but Botsford did not
10
11
respond.
25.
Upon Botsford’s failure to respond to PLAINTIFF’s complaints, PLAINTIFF
12
contacted Botsford’s superior, HR Manager Tracy Thomas (“Thomas”). After PLAINTIFF
13
contacted Thomas, Botsford responded finally. PLAINTIFF told Botsford that he believed
14
Sharma was being told of PLAINTIFF’s complaints about Sharma’s abusive behavior,
15
because Sharma began acting with greater hostility against PLAINTIFF.
16
26.
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to DEFENDANTS’
17
employee relations staffer Benita Patel (“Patel”) about the ongoing abuse by his superiors.
18
This abuse included racial taunts, calling him “carpet boy” and “brown boy” in reference to
19
his Asian heritage, while also telling him to “quit acting like a nigger” and “stop
20
complaining, it’s just powder.”
21
27.
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF was called into a meeting with
22
his supervisors Baines, Corona, and Sharma. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF was asked
23
why he refused to work with the more toxic powder. PLAINTIFF explained that the papr
24
hazmat suit and air filtration system made his breathing difficult and triggered asthma
25
attacks, which constitutes a bona fide complaint about workplace health and safety. Later
26
that day, PLAINTIFF received an email from Sharma purporting to memorialize the
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 9
1
meeting, but which grossly mischaracterized what had occurred and accused PLAINTIFF of
2
insubordination for refusing the assignment.
3
28.
Around this time, PLAINTIFF reached such a level of stress and anxiety that
4
he reached out directly to DEFENDANTS’ CEO Elon Musk to inform him about the
5
constant abuse, harassment, and retaliation he faced. Musk did not respond.
6
29.
Approximately two weeks after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford,
7
Thomas, and Patel, he was moved under a different supervisor, Omar Corona (“Corona”).
8
However, PLAINTIFF worked with the same noxious powder and his health condition
9
continued to suffer.
10
30.
PLAINTIFF regularly overheard Corona using racial and ethnic slurs toward
11
other employees, including telling a Caucasian employee, “Get back in there, whitey, you’re
12
acting like a nigger.” Corona continued to use abusive language and racial slurs against
13
PLAINTIFF, calling him “carpet boy” or “brown boy” no fewer than 20 times.
14
31.
Approximately one month after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford,
15
Thomas, and Patel, he was moved to another workspace where he was not required to work
16
with the noxious powders. His health condition steadily improved, including fewer
17
respiratory issues.
18
32.
The reprieve was short-lived, as PLAINTIFF was returned to the powder-
19
mixing position three weeks later. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately upon
20
his return.
21
33.
A short time after being reassigned to the powder mixing position, as his health
22
condition worsened, PLAINTIFF approached his team lead Jack K. and asked to go home on
23
a day when he was feeling especially ill. Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that if he left, he would
24
receive a “point” in DEFENDANTS’ attendance system. In this system, 10 points in a six-
25
month period is grounds for termination.
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 10
1
34.
In addition to continuing the disregard for PLAINTIFF’s health concerns, Jack
2
K. also continued the pattern and practice of racial hostility, including calling PLAINTIFF a
3
“terrorist” in reference to his South Asian heritage.
4
5
6
35.
On one such occasion, on or about January 3, 2022, PLAINTIFF was so upset
that he had to repair to a restroom to keep from breaking down publicly.
36.
As PLAINTIFF was returning to work from the restroom, he was approached
7
by Baines, who asked if PLAINTIFF were a “female,” as though that would be a reason for
8
him to spend so much time in the restroom. When PLAINTIFF responded that he was not
9
feeling well, Baines called him “a disgrace to Indians” and a “stupid Christian.”
10
37.
Later that day, PLAINTIFF sent Patel an email recounting the above incident
11
with Baines, describing it as an example of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation by his
12
supervisors. Not long after sending his email, PLAINTIFF received an email from Baines
13
threatening discipline for his use of the restroom. PLAINTIFF replied to Baines and the
14
other supervisors cc’d on the email that this was another incident of harassment,
15
intimidation, and retaliation.
16
38.
PLAINTIFF faced other incidents of harassment and retaliation, and specific
17
events meant to cause him public humiliation and ostracism. On at least three occasions,
18
PLAINTIFF’s department had pizza parties to which PLAINTIFF was not invited, and at
19
least one of which PLAINTIFF was specifically told he was excluded from and was barred
20
from entering the room.
21
39.
In or about early February 2022, PLAINTIFF was informed that he would be
22
transferred to the winding department. PLAINTIFF had not requested a transfer.
23
PLAINTIFF later learned that the same day he was transferred out of it, everybody in the
24
department was given a $2.00 per hour pay increase.
25
40.
In addition to being racially harassed and socially outcast, PLAINTIFF was
26
subjected to sabotage in his work. On at least three occasions, while PLAINTIFF was mixing
27
powder, he requested assistance from a coworker to replenish his powder supply. When the
28
9
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 11
1
coworker went to get more powder, the supervisor, Wade Bolinger (“Bolinger”), stopped the
2
coworker and engaged him in a conversation. Meanwhile, PLAINTIFF continued to yell to
3
the coworker that he was running out of powder. At some point, Baines came by to tell
4
PLAINTIFF that he was running low on powder and should have replenished his supply.
5
Before PLAINTIFF could explain that Bolinger was preventing the coworker from getting
6
more powder, Baines told PLAINTIFF he was doing a poor job and walked away.
7
41.
In the winding department, where DEFENDANTS transferred PLAINTIFF to
8
avoid paying him a $2.00 per hour wage increase, there are 12 machines that wind, but some
9
produce worse or better yields of “jelly rolls”—internal battery components—based on their
10
current state of repair. In addition to receiving insufficient training on the winding machines,
11
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was assigned to machines in various states of disrepair that
12
routinely produced a smaller number of jelly rolls. PLAINTIFF believes this was deliberate
13
and another attempt to sabotage his work.
14
42.
PLAINTIFF had to leave his work area about fifteen times per day to pick up
15
cathode and anode pancakes, which he had to retrieve from a warehouse on other side of
16
department. This effort constituted a five-minute walk to the supply, then sometimes a wait
17
on the material. On average, it was a 10-minute process followed by a five-minute walk back
18
to his workstation; he did this approximately 15 times per day. From that point, it took
19
additional five minutes to resupply and prepare his workstation to operate again.
20
43.
At least one time, Bolinger confronted PLAINTIFF, saying PLAINTIFF had
21
been missing for a long time. PLAINTIFF explained that he was resupplying and accounted
22
for his time, all tasks that fell within his scope of duties. Bolinger in response said he did not
23
care and told PLAINTIFF he was getting a verbal warning.
24
44.
The harassment continued with repeated accusations that PLAINTIFF was
25
unjustifiably away from his workstation when he was busy securing supplies necessary for
26
doing his work. Bolinger would call Baines, who would wait for PLAINTIFF, and upon his
27
return, falsely accuse him of going “missing” for two hours. PLAINTIFF would correctly
28
10
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 12
1
deny the accusation and direct Baines to the surveillance cameras to confirm his story. The
2
false accusation would stand, but without confirmation.
3
45.
At some point in early 2022, PLAINTIFF began to be followed by another
4
employee, Ali E., who was a supervisor or superior in a different department. On one
5
occasion, PLAINTIFF was away from his workstation, Ali E., without any apparent
6
authority to question PLAINTIFF’s whereabouts, sent PLAINTIFF a text message asking
7
him why he was not at his workstation. PLAINTIFF responded to Ali E. and said to leave
8
him alone. PLAINTIFF forwarded the text exchange to Baines, who responded with a
9
“laughing face” emoji.
10
46.
PLAINTIFF also faced disparate treatment on sick leave, as Bolinger and
11
Baines promised one thing but delivered another. On an occasion when PLAINTIFF was
12
feeling unwell at work and thought he might faint, he walked away from his workstation to
13
get a drink of water. When he did so, he was approached by Baines, who suggested that he
14
might be better off going home. After returning to work for about two hours, PLAINTIFF
15
determined that he could no longer work that day. PLAINTIFF approached Bolinger and said
16
he was not well and asked if he would get into trouble if he went home for the day. Bolinger
17
told PLAINTIFF that he would not get into any trouble.
18
47.
When PLAINTIFF returned to work, he was ordered to attend a department
19
meeting where attendance issues were addressed. PLAINTIFF was directly challenged about
20
the previous week’s incident and two others where he had to leave work for illness.
21
PLAINTIFF replied that he had asked Bolinger if there was any problem with going home
22
early and was told there was not; Bolinger denied this occurred. PLAINTIFF received
23
disciplinary write-ups for these absences.
24
48.
PLAINTIFF continued to be routinely assigned to winding machines that were
25
somehow faulty and did not produce at full capacity. While coworkers were rotated through
26
the machines, PLAINTIFF was ordered to use the faulty machines and was not provided a
27
28
11
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 13
1
winding partner which caused difficulty in the operations of the machines. Nonetheless, he
2
continued to reach or nearly reach his production quotas on a regular basis.
3
49.
PLAINTIFF was also subjected to public humiliation, including being singled
4
out for ostracism, when team leaders pointed him out to new hires as someone to avoid,
5
pointing to him and describing him as “the wrong crowd” and someone they “should not
6
hang out with.”
7
50.
After approximately three months in the winding department, PLAINTIFF
8
received a three-month review from Bolinger – the only performance review he received—
9
where he was criticized for failing to keep up with the production quotas. Bolinger
10
threatened PLAINTIFF that he would never advance in the company. PLAINTIFF was not
11
given a copy of the review.
12
51.
In or about July 2022, PLAINTIFF complained to Baines that Ali E. was
13
continuing to follow and harass him, including following him to the restroom, which Baines
14
denied. PLAINTIFF asked how many other employees were being similarly surveilled;
15
Baines did not respond to the question. PLAINTIFF asked if this was discrimination against
16
him; Baines again did not answer the question.
17
52.
In or about August 2022, PLAINTIFF overheard Ali E. say to another
18
employee words to the effect of “you’re being lazy. I thought Mexicans were supposed to
19
work harder.” Being part Mexican, PLAINTIFF took offense to this. He later complained to
20
HR about this and was led to believe that an investigation was undertaken.
21
53.
On or about August 6, 2022, upon learning that Bolinger was being transferred
22
to Texas, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Ali E., Bains, Bolinger, and others, stating he
23
discovered on an internal HR portal several writeups that needed to be corrected before
24
Bolinger left because some came under Bolinger’s supervision, and because Bollinger had
25
given PLAINTIFF permission to take requested time off that he was then written up for.
26
PLAINTIFF stated that he felt these writeups were in effort to push him out and to fire him,
27
that he felt retaliated against and might take matters higher up. PLAINTIFF stated that he
28
12
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 14
1
loved his job at Tesla and wanted to be a part of its future in sustainable energy.
2
PLAINTIFF received no response to this message.
3
54.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF wrote Aenoi V. Jones of Human
4
Resources in a higher division (“Jones”) that he tried to contact someone about his problems
5
with his supervisors but was being redirected to his direct HR contact with whom he did not
6
feel comfortable speaking because he believed that person communicated his complaints to
7
those he complained about and was requesting someone else to speak with about his
8
complaints.
9
55.
Jones replied on August 8, 2022, directing PLAINTIFF to reach out to the
10
Senior HR Manager, Nicole Burgers (“Burgers”), and provided him with her email address
11
and phone number.
12
56.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF called Burgers on the phone and told
13
her his work performance was being sabotaged, that he was experiencing discrimination and
14
harassment and told her about the investigation that he understood was started. Burgers told
15
PLAINTIFF she would look into the investigation.
16
57.
On or about September 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a text message to Burgers
17
stating that he has multiple writeups and just received a final writeup on the internal HR
18
portal. Burgers replied on September 9, 2022, stating she would look into it.
19
58.
On or about September 8 or 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a message to his direct
20
supervisors, HR, his HR manager’s manager, and their managers, totaling 10-11 recipients.
21
An investigator sent a message to PLAINTIFF stating she was working on the investigation
22
and asked him to give her more information, which he did.
23
59.
Sometime thereabout, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Thomas, his direct HR
24
Manager, but she did not open his message, which he confirmed through “read receipts” in
25
the messaging app. PLAINTIFF’s message had similar content to what he told Burgers.
26
Thomas did not respond.
27
28
13
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 15
60.
1
On or about September 23, 2022, PLAINTIFF was called on the phone by
2
Daniel Donenfeld, HR Partner, Vehicle Engineering & Cell Manufacturing Operations
3
(“Donenfeld”) and James Wall, who is the manager above Baines (“Wall”). Donenfeld left
4
PLAINTIFF a voice mail and Wall sent a message to him on an internal messaging app,
5
asking if they could schedule a call that day. PLAINTIFF confirmed, and they later spoke to
6
PLAINTIFF together and told him that due to safety reasons, PLAINTIFF’s status of
7
employment changed to termination and that it's a final decision that cannot be changed.
8
They also mentioned they reviewed the warnings on his profile and told PLAINTIFF to
9
email HR if he has any questions.
61.
10
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Donenfeld stating that his verbal and non-verbal
11
warnings were invalid, and Mr. Donenfeld replied “Hi Vincent, all allegations were raised to
12
appropriate parties and action is taken.”
62.
13
On or about October 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Donenfeld asking
14
the reason he was terminated. Donenfeld wrote back that “The reason for your termination is
15
because it is more likely than not that you violated Tesla's policy.”
63.
16
17
On or about October 21, 2022, PLAINTIFF replied to Mr. Donenfeld asking
which policy was violated. PLAINTIFF never received any reply from Mr. Donenfeld.
64.
18
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was terminated for pretextual reasons motivated by
19
discrimination based on race, religion, and disability, and in retaliation for complaining
20
about harassment and health and safety hazards.
65.
21
As a result of the unlawful conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 as set
22
forth in this Complaint, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages,
23
serious emotional suffering and damages, and other damages as will be proved at the time of
24
trial.
III.
25
26
27
28
66.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s attorney, Calderone Law Firm,
filed a verified complaint on behalf of Plaintiff with the California Department of Fair
14
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 16
1
Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) now referred to as the Civil Rights Department using the
2
DFEH online system, pursuant to Government Code section 12900 et seq., alleging that the
3
acts described in this complaint violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
4
Prior to the Complaint being submitted using the DFEH online system, Plaintiff verified the
5
contents of the complaint and gave his attorney’s permission to submit the verified complaint
6
on his behalf to the DFEH. The complaint was verified by Plaintiff pursuant to Government
7
Code 12900 et seq. The DFEH issued “right to sue” letter, a copy of which is attached hereto
8
marked as Exhibit “A.” Therefore, all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit
9
have been fulfilled.
10
11
12
13
14
15
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Racial /Color/Ancestry Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
67.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
68.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
16
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for racial, color, and ancestry
17
discrimination because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
18
69.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
19
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is of multi-racial
20
heritage, including Indian, Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry.
21
70.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or ancestry.
22
California Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment
23
practice “[f]or an employer, because of the race … color … [or] ancestry … of any person …
24
to discharge the person from employment … or to discriminate against the person in
25
compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
26
27
28
71.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
actions based on his race, color, or ancestry including, but not limited to, severe and
15
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 17
1
pervasive harassment of PLAINTIFF in his employment because of his race, including but
2
not limited to references to his Indian heritage, calling him “carpet boy” and “terrorist” and
3
“a disgrace to Indians”; refences to his Mexican heritage and use of insults like “lazy” and
4
harmful stereotypes like “Mexicans are supposed to work harder”; refences to his African-
5
American heritage, including repeated use of the epithet “nigger”; and references to his race
6
and color, generally, with slurs like “brown boy” and “little mutt.”
7
72.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive racial,
8
color, and ancestry discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received
9
no reprieve from the abusive treatment.
10
11
12
73.
PLAINTIFF’s multi-racial heritage was a motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
74.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
13
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
14
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
15
which will be proven at trial.
16
75.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
17
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
18
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
19
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
20
76.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
21
acts—including but not limited to those carried out by Baines, Bolinger, Corona, and
22
Sharma—were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were
23
directed or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for
24
PLAINTIFF’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to
25
constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling
26
PLAINTIFF to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an
27
example of DEFENDANTS.
28
16
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 18
1
77.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
2
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
3
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
4
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
5
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
V.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Religious Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
78.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
79.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
13
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for religious discrimination
14
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
15
80.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
16
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is an adherent of the
17
Christian faith.
18
81.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on religion. California
19
Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
20
an employer, because of the … religious creed . . . of any person . . . to discharge the person
21
from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms,
22
conditions or privileges of employment.”
23
82.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
24
actions based on his religion including, but not limited to, severe and pervasive harassment
25
of PLAINTIFF employment because of his religion, including but not limited to calling him
26
a “stupid Christian” and “not a real Christian.”
27
28
17
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 19
1
83.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive religious
2
discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from
3
the abusive treatment.
4
5
6
84.
PLAINTIFF’s religion was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
85.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
7
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
8
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
9
which will be proven at trial.
10
86.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
11
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
12
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
13
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
14
87.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANT’s and Does 1-50's
15
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
16
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
17
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
18
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
19
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
20
DEFENDANTS.
21
88.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
22
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
23
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
24
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
25
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
26
27
28
VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
18
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 20
1
2
3
89.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
90.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
4
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for disability discrimination
5
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
6
91.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
7
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF suffers from asthma,
8
which is recognized as a disability under the FEHA. See Ca. Dept. of Cor. v. State Personnel
9
Bd. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1601, generally. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to
10
DEFENDANTS.
11
92.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful discrimination based on disability. California
12
Government Code Section 12940 (a) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
13
an employer, because of the … physical disability. . . of any person . . . to discharge the
14
person from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in
15
terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
16
93.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
17
actions based on his physical disability including, but not limited to, severe and pervasive
18
harassment of PLAINTIFF employment because of his disability, including but not limited
19
to calling him “lazy,” questioning his manhood by asking if he was a “female,” telling him to
20
“quit crying like a baby,” minimizing his breathing difficulties because “it’s just powder,”
21
and other slights, insults, denigrations, and attempts to publicly humiliate him.
22
94.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive disability
23
discrimination and harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from
24
the abusive treatment.
25
26
95.
PLAINTIFF’s disability was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
27
28
19
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 21
1
96.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
2
and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment
3
benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of
4
which will be proven at trial.
5
97.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
6
conduct and intentional discriminatory actions, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to
7
suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional
8
distress. The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
9
98.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
10
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
11
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
12
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
13
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
14
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
15
DEFENDANTS.
16
99.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
17
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
18
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
19
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
20
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
21
22
23
24
25
26
VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Racial/Color/Ancestry Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
100. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
20
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 22
1
101. DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
2
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for racial, color, and ancestry
3
harassment because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
4
102. At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
5
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is of multi-racial
6
heritage, including Indian, Mexican, African American, and Fijian ancestry.
7
103. The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on race, color, or ancestry.
8
California Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment
9
practice “[f]or an employer … because of the race … color … [or] ancestry … to harass an
10
11
employee ….”
104. DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
12
harassment of PLAINTIFF in his employment because of his race, color, and ancestry,
13
including but not limited to references to his Indian heritage, calling him “carpet boy” and
14
“terrorist” and “a disgrace to Indians”; refences to his Mexican heritage and use of insults
15
like “lazy” and harmful stereotypes like “Mexicans are supposed to work harder”; refences
16
to his African-American heritage, including repeated use of the epithet “nigger”; and
17
references to his race and color, generally, with slurs like “brown boy” and “little mutt.”
18
105. PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive racial
19
harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive
20
treatment.
21
22
23
106. PLAINTIFF’s multi-racial heritage was a substantially motivating reason for
the above-described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
107. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
24
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
25
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
26
proven at trial.
27
28
21
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 23
1
108. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
2
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
3
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
4
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
5
109. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
6
acts—including but not limited to those carried out by Baines, Bolinger, Corona, and
7
Sharma—were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were
8
directed or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for
9
PLAINTIFF’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to
10
constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling
11
PLAINTIFF to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an
12
example of DEFENDANTS.
13
110. The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
14
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
15
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
16
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
17
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Religious Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
111.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
112.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
24
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for religious harassment because
25
they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
26
113.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
27
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF is an adherent of the
28
Christian faith.
22
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 24
1
114.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on religion. California
2
Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
3
an employer, because of … religious creed . . . to harass an employee ….”
4
115.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
5
harassment of PLAINTIFF employment because of his religion, including but not limited to
6
calling him a “stupid Christian” and “not a real Christian.”
7
116.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive religious
8
harassment he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive
9
treatment.
10
11
12
117.
PLAINTIFF’s religion was a substantially motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
118.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
13
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
14
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
15
proven at trial.
16
119.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
17
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
18
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
19
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
20
120.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
21
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
22
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
23
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
24
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
25
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
26
DEFENDANTS.
27
28
23
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 25
1
121.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
2
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
3
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
4
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
5
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Disability Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
122.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
123.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
12
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for disability harassment because
13
they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
14
124.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
15
Does 1-50, and was at all times qualified for the position. PLAINTIFF suffers from asthma,
16
which is recognized as a disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known
17
to DEFENDANTS.
18
125.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful harassment based on disability. California
19
Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1) provides it is an unlawful employment practice “[f]or
20
an employer … because of … disability … to harass an employee….”
21
126.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 subjected PLAINTIFF to severe and pervasive
22
harassment of PLAINTIFF because of his disability, including but not limited to calling him
23
“lazy,” questioning his manhood by asking if he was a “female,” telling him to “quit crying
24
like a baby,” minimizing his breathing difficulties because “it’s just powder,” and other
25
slights, insults, denigrations, and attempts to publicly humiliate him.
26
27
28
127.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained about the severe and pervasive harassment
he faced from his supervisors but received no reprieve from the abusive treatment.
24
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 26
1
2
3
128.
PLAINTIFF’s disability was a substantial motivating reason for the above-
described conduct by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50.
129.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
4
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
5
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
6
proven at trial.
7
130.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
8
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
9
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
10
11
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
131.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
12
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
13
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
14
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
15
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
16
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
17
DEFENDANTS.
18
132.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
19
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
20
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
21
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
22
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
23
24
25
26
27
28
X.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Accommodate in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
133.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
25
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 27
1
134.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
2
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to accommodate
3
because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
4
135.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
5
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
6
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
7
136.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful failure to make reasonable accommodations for
8
disability. California Government Code Section 12940 (m)(1) provides it is an unlawful
9
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to make reasonable accommodation for
10
11
the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.”
137.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
12
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
13
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
14
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
15
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
16
DEFENDANTS.
17
138.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 failed and/or refused to make reasonable
18
accommodation to PLAINTIFF’s physical disability despite being aware of the doctor’s note
19
requiring PLAINTIFF to be taken out of the area where noxious powders were aggravating
20
his asthma. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that reasonable accommodations were
21
available, such as transfer to different departments or other vacancies that did not involve
22
mixing noxious powders that aggravated his asthma.
23
24
25
26
139.
DEFENDANTS failed and refused to accommodate PLAINTIFF’s disability
by transferring him to a position that would not aggravate his asthma.
140.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to reasonably accommodate PLAINTIFF’s
27
28
26
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 28
1
disability, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for
2
which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
141.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
142.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
143.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
144.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
145.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to engage in the
interactive process because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or more
persons.
27
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 29
1
146.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
2
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
3
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
4
147.
The FEHA prohibits unlawful failure to engage is a good-faith interactive
5
process. California Government Code Section 12940 (n) provides it is an unlawful
6
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to engage in a timely, good faith,
7
interactive process with the employee … to determine effective reasonable accommodations,
8
if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee … with a
9
known physical or mental disability.”
10
148.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
11
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
12
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
13
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
14
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
15
DEFENDANTS.
16
149.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly sought to engage in a good-faith, interactive process
17
with DEFENDANTS to find a reasonable accommodation, but DEFENDANTS repeatedly
18
failed and/or refused to participate, unnecessarily delaying any response for weeks and
19
ultimately refusing to participate, citing DEFENDANTS’ formalistic rules to justify the
20
refusal to participate.
21
150.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 failed and/or refused to discuss making
22
reasonable accommodation to PLAINTIFF’s physical disability despite being aware of the
23
doctor’s note requiring PLAINTIFF to be taken out of the area where noxious powders were
24
aggravating his asthma.
25
151.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
26
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive
27
process to try to identify reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disability,
28
28
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 30
1
PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he
2
seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
152.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
153.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its’ managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
154.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
XII. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
155.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
156.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
25
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for retaliation because they are
26
employers who regularly employ five (5) or more persons.
27
28
29
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 31
1
157.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
2
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
3
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
4
158.
California Government Code Section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for an
5
employer "to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person" because the
6
person has opposed practices forbidden by this part" or "because the person has filed a
7
complaint, testified, or assisted in proceeding under this part." The FEHA also prohibits
8
retaliation against employees seeking reasonable accommodations for disability. California
9
Government Code Section 12940 (m)(2) provides it is an unlawful employment practice
10
“[f]or an employer … covered by this part to … retaliate or otherwise discriminate against a
11
person for requesting accommodation under this subdivision, regardless of whether the
12
request was granted.”
13
159.
PLAINTIFF requested reasonable accommodations by complaining about
14
noxious powders in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory
15
difficulties, among other health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor
16
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
17
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to
18
DEFENDANTS.
19
160.
DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by engaging in a series of
20
violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized, being transferred
21
to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him followed at work,
22
harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions. PLAINTIFF was
23
regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible to meet his
24
production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews.
25
DEFENDANTS also retaliated against PLAINTIFF by terminating his employment,
26
substantially motivated by PLAINTIFF’s engaging in protected activity of complaining and
27
opposing harassing, and discriminatory conduct in the workplace.
28
30
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 32
1
161.
PLAINTIFF complained about these acts of retaliation to DEFENDANTS’ HR
2
and employee relations staff on many, many occasions. PLAINTIFF’s complaints did not
3
result in any action being taken against his tormenters.
4
162.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
5
and intentional acts in failing and/or refusing to engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive
6
process to try to identify reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF’s disability,
7
PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he
8
seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
9
163.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
10
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
11
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
12
will be proven at trial.
13
164.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
14
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
15
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
16
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
17
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
18
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
19
DEFENDANTS.
20
165.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
21
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
22
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
23
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
24
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
25
26
27
28
XIII. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation in Violation of California’s
Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
31
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 33
1
2
3
166.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
167.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 are subject to the laws of the State of
4
California and are entities subject to suit under the FEHA for failure to prevent harassment,
5
discrimination, and retaliation because they are employers who regularly employ five (5) or
6
more persons.
7
168.
At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and
8
Does 1-50, was at all times qualified for the position, and at all times suffered from asthma, a
9
disability under the FEHA. PLAINTIFF’s asthma was a fact known to DEFENDANTS.
10
169.
The FEHA requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment,
11
discrimination, and retaliation. See California Government Code Section 12940 (j)(1),
12
stating in part, “An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from
13
occurring.” California Government Code Section 12940 (k) provides it is an unlawful
14
employment practice “[f]or an employer … to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to
15
prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.”
16
170.
Throughout his employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF suffered
17
severe and pervasive harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on his religion, race,
18
disability, and requests for reasonable accommodation. This unlawful abuse took the form of
19
racial and religious slurs, abusive epithets, ostracism, mockery, public humiliation,
20
surveillance, and punitive assignment to faulty equipment resulting in inability to meet
21
production quotas which in turn led to negative performance reviews.
22
171.
PLAINTIFF complained about these acts of harassment, discrimination, and
23
retaliation to DEFENDANTS’ HR and employee relations staff on many, many occasions.
24
PLAINTIFF’s complaints did not result in any action being taken against his tormenters.
25
26
172.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct in
failing and/or refusing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
27
28
32
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 34
1
retaliation, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered damages
2
for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
3
173.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
4
conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry, embarrassment,
5
humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress. The amount of such damages
6
will be proven at trial.
7
174.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
8
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
9
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
10
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
11
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
12
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
13
DEFENDANTS.
14
175.
The California Government Code Section 12965(b) provides for an award of
15
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in an action brought
16
under its terms. PLAINTIFF has employed and will continue to employ attorneys for the
17
initiation and prosecution of this action. PLAINTIFF has incurred and will continue to incur
18
attorneys' fees and costs herein and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
XIV. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliation
(Labor Code §6310)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
19
20
21
22
23
24
176.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
177.
California Labor Code Section 6310 (a), which addresses workplace safety,
25
states, “No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee
26
because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint
27
to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting
28
33
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 35
1
the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their
2
representative.”
3
178.
California Labor Code Section 6310 (b) states, “Any employee who is
4
discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner
5
discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by their employer because
6
the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to … their employer, or their
7
representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in their employment or place
8
of employment … shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and
9
work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.”
10
179.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained to his supervisors about noxious powders
11
in his workspace aggravating his asthma and causing respiratory difficulties, among other
12
health consequences. PLAINTIFF secured a note from his doctor ordering that PLAINTIFF
13
be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were causing him harm by
14
aggravating his asthma. PLAINTIFF provided the doctor’s note to DEFENDANTS. These
15
acts by PLAINTIFF were protected conduct under Labor Code Section 6310 (a).
16
180.
DEFENDANTS retaliated and discriminated against PLAINTIFF by engaging
17
in a series of violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized,
18
being transferred to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him
19
followed at work, harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions.
20
PLAINTIFF was regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible
21
to meet his production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews.
22
Such acts of retaliation against PLAINTIFF for his making bona fide complaints about
23
matters of workplace safety violate Labor Code Section 6310 (a).
24
181.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
25
and intentional acts in retaliating against PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and
26
employment benefits, and suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole pursuant
27
to Labor Code Section 6310 (b), the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
28
34
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 36
1
182.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
2
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
3
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
4
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
5
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
6
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
7
DEFENDANTS.
8
XV.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Whistleblower Retaliation
(Labor Code §1102.5)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
9
10
11
183.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
12 inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
13
184.
Labor Code Section 1102.5 (b) states, in pertinent part, “An employer … shall
14
not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information … to a person with authority
15
over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or
16
correct the violation or noncompliance, … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe
17
that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
18
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.”
19
185.
PLAINTIFF repeatedly complained to DEFENDANTS, by and through its’
20
HR department, which had the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation,
21
about the severe and pervasive discrimination, harassment, and retaliation he faced in the
22
workplace, which PLAINTIFF reasonably believed violates the FEHA, a state statute.
23
PLAINTIFF’s complaints to HR were therefore protected acts under Labor Code Section
24
1102.5.
25
186.
DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF by engaging in a series of
26
violations large and small, including public humiliations, being ostracized, being transferred
27
to deny him a pay increase, putting him under surveillance and having him followed at work,
28
35
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 37
1
harassing him for using the restroom, and other adverse workplace actions. PLAINTIFF was
2
regularly assigned to faulty equipment that made it difficult or impossible to meet his
3
production quotas, which led to him receiving negative performance reviews. Such acts of
4
retaliation against PLAINTIFF were substantially motivated by PLAINTIFF’s making bona
5
fide complaints to DEFENDANTS’ HR department for unlawful harassment, retaliation, and
6
discrimination in violation of the FEHA.
7
187.
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
8
and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and
9
suffered damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be
10
11
proven at trial.
188.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
12
conduct and intentional harassment, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer
13
anxiety, worry, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and serious emotional distress.
14
The amount of such damages will be proven at trial.
15
189.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
16
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
17
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF’s
18
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
19
oppression, fraud, or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
20
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
21
DEFENDANTS.
22
190.
Labor Code §1102.5 (f) states, “In addition to other penalties, an employer that
23
is a corporation … is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
24
for each violation of this section.” PLAINTIFF seeks a $10,000 civil penalty pursuant to
25
California Labor Code §1102.5 (f) against DEFENDANTS.
26
27
28
36
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 38
1
191.
Labor Code §1102.5 (j) states, “The court is authorized to award reasonable
2
attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of these
3
provisions.”
XVI. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Safeguard Medical Information
(Civil Code §§ 56.20, 56.35, 56.36)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
4
5
6
7
8
9
192.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
193.
California Civil Code Section 56.20 (a) states, “Each employer who receives
10
medical information shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure the confidentiality and
11
protection from unauthorized use and disclosure of that information.”
12
194.
California Civil Code Section 56.35 states, “In addition to any other remedies
13
available at law, a patient whose medical information has been used or disclosed in violation
14
of Section 56.10, 56.104, 56.107, or 56.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 56.26 and who has
15
sustained economic loss or personal injury therefrom may recover compensatory damages,
16
punitive damages not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), attorney’s fees not to exceed
17
one thousand dollars ($1,000), and the costs of litigation.”
18
195.
California Civil Code Section 56.36(b) states, “In addition to any other
19
remedies available at law, an individual may bring an action against a person or entity who
20
has negligently released confidential information or records concerning him or her in
21
violation of this part, for either or both of the following:
22
(1) Except as provided in subdivision (e), nominal damages of one thousand
23
dollars ($1,000). In order to recover under this paragraph, it is not necessary
24
that the plaintiff suffered or was threatened with actual damages.
25
(2) The amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the patient.”
26
27
28
196.
PLAINTIFF entrusted to his team lead, Jack K., a note from his doctor
ordering that PLAINTIFF be taken out of the workspace where noxious powders were
37
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 39
1
causing him harm by aggravating his asthma, which constitutes medical information that
2
DEFENDANTS were obligated to take care to keep private under Civil Code Section 56.20.
197.
3
The note was later returned to PLAINTIFF by a coworker who found it
4
discarded on the factory floor. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is inescapable that
5
Jack K. failed to take care and willfully or negligently disclosed PLAINTIFF’s private
6
medical information to an unknowable number of PLAINTIFF’s coworkers.
198.
7
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct,
8
by and through Jack K., PLAINTIFF has suffered damages for which he seeks to be made
9
whole pursuant to Civil Code Section 56.36(b), the exact amount of which will be proven at
10
11
12
trial.
199.
authorized by Civil Code Sections 56.35 and 56.36 (b).
XVII. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
(Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50)
13
14
15
16
17
PLAINTIFF additionally seeks nominal and punitive damages as permitted and
200.
PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65,
inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
201.
DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 terminated PLAINTIFF in retaliation for his
18
complaints about harassment, discrimination, and retaliation he faced due to his race,
19
religion, and disability, and in retaliation for making complaints about health and safety
20
concerns in his workplace.
21
202.
In doing so, DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 violated of the public policy set
22
forth in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 12900,
23
et seq., which prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, religion, and
24
disability, and which prohibits retaliation against employees who complain about facing
25
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
26
27
28
203.
In doing so, DEFENDANTS and Does 1-50 also violated of the public policy
set forth in Labor Code Section Sections 1102.5 and 6310, which protects the rights of
38
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 40
1
employees to bring bona fide complaints of unlawful conduct in the workplace and
2
workplace health and safety issues without fear of reprisal.
204.
3
As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful conduct
4
described above, PLAINTIFF has lost earnings and employment benefits, and suffered
5
damages for which he seeks to be made whole, the exact amount of which will be proven at
6
trial.
7
205.
As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's wrongful
8
conduct described above, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, worry,
9
embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. The amount of
10
11
damages of which will be proven at trial.
206.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS’ and Does 1-50's
12
acts were carried out by its managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed
13
or ratified by DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-50 with a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s
14
rights and with the intent to vex, injure, and annoy PLAINTIFF, such as to constitute
15
oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling PLAINTIFF
16
to punitive damages in a sum appropriate and sufficient to punish and make an example of
17
Defendants and Does 1-50.
18
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. For general damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
2. For special damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
3. For compensatory damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which
such damages are available;
4. For punitive damages, according to proof or each cause of action for which such
damages are available;
39
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 41
1
5. For pre-judgement and post-judgement interest according to law;
2
6. For reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action on those causes of action for
3
which such fees are recoverable under the law;
4
7. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
5
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
6
7
8
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CAUSES OF
ACTION ALLEGED HEREIN.
9
10
Dated: March 7, 2023
CALDERONE LAW FIRM
11
12
13
14
___________________________
Vincent Calderone
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
Vincent Singh
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40
COMPLAINT
PDF Page 42
EXHIBIT A
PDF Page 43
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA j 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) i 800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh .ca.gov
February 10, 2023
Vincent Calderone
2321 Rosecrans Ave ., Suite 1265
El Segundo, CA 90245
RE:
Notice to Complainant's Attorney
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
Dear Vincent Calderone:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) 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, CRD will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. 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 CRD does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 44
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 195758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
February 10, 2023
RE:
Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil
Rights Department (CRD)) 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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD's Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD 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 CRD is requested or required.
Sincerely,
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 45
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 8D RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 46
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH , DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) j 800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
February 10, 2023
Vincent Singh
RE:
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
CRD Matter Number: 202302-19577802
Right to Sue: Singh/ Tesla, Inc. et al.
Dear Vincent Singh:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights
Department (CRD) has been closed effective February 10, 2023 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 CRD'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 CRD'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 CRD'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
CRD's Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the CRD matter number indicated
on the Right to Sue notice.
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 47
STATE OF CA LIF ORN IA
I
Business, Consumer Serv ices and Housing Agency
Civil Rights Department
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA 195758
800-884-1684 (voice) 1800-700-2320 (TTY) I California's Relay Service at 711
calcivilrights.ca.gov I contact.ce nter@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
CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 48
1
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
Civil Rights Department
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code,§ 12900 et seq.)
3
4
5
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Vincent Singh
6
7
8
9
10
11
CRD No. 202302-19577802
Complainant,
vs .
Tesla, Inc.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
Tesla Motors, Inc.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
12
Respondents
13
14
15
1. Respondent Tesla, Inc. is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code,§ 12900 et seq .).
16
2.Complainant is naming Tesla Motors, Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
17
3. Complainant Vincent Singh, resides in the City of, State of .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. Complainant alleges that on or about September 23, 2022, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's ancestry, national origin (includes
language restrictions), color, religious creed - includes dress and grooming practices,
disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), race (includes
hairstyle and hair texture).
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's ancestry, national
origin (includes language restrictions), color, religious creed - includes dress and grooming
practices, disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), race
(includes hairstyle and hair texture) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated,
denied hire or promotion, reprimanded , suspended, denied accommodation for religious
26
-1Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 49
1
beliefs, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer, denied
accommodation for a disability.
2
3
4
5
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation,
requested or used a religious accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination
or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion,
reprimanded, suspended, demoted, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or
forced to transfer, denied accommodation for a disability.
6
7
8
g
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
Additional Complaint Details: At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF Vincent Singh
(hereinafter, "PLAINTIFF") was an individual employed by Defendant Tesla, Inc. and/or
Tesla Motor, Inc. (hereinafter, "DEFENDANT") as a Production Associate. PLAINTIFF' job
was to work in DEFENDANTS' factory located at 47700 Kato Road, in the City of Fremont
and County of Alameda, State of California, assembling components for electrical batteries.
PLAINTIFF was, at all relevant times, a resident in the County of San Joaquin, State of
California. PLAINTIFF is of mixed racial heritage, including South Asian (Indian), Mexican,
African-American, and Fijian ancestry. PLAINTIFF practices the Christian faith.
PLAINTIFF was hired by DEFENDANT through Indeed.com, an online recruiting platform.
During the interview and hiring process, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANT's recruiter that
he suffered from asthma. Qnce PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANT, his asthma
malady was never brought up as a matter to be considered in his work assignment until he
complained about its being aggravated, as described in greater depth, below.
PLAINTIFF began working for DEFENDANT on or about October 11, 2021. PLAINTIFF was
hired as a production associate. In the department where PLAINTIFF was assigned, there
are giant tub mixers that combine powders for making battery components. PLAINTIFF was
tasked with whisking the powder and then inserting it into a machine, which was part of
production line for making batteries used in DEFENDANT's electric motor vehicles.
During his employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF performed as expected or better,
except when he was punitively assigned to dysfunctional equipment that limited his
productivity, as described in greater depth, below.
At the time, PLAINTIFF was unaware that he was being exposed to anode powder, which
caused him harmful health effects and aggravated his asthma. PLAINTIFF first complained
to his supervisor, Mr. Rohit Sharma ("Sharma") about this; Sharma was dismissive and
argumentative in response to PLAINTIFF's complaints. PLAINTIFF continued to work mixing
powders, despite the continued aggravation of his asthma.
After spending about two months in this initial department mixing anode powder, PLAINTIFF
complained to his manager, Opinder Baines ("Baines"), orally about his asthma condition as
it worsened.
Baines, who PLAINTIFF is informed and believes is also of Indian descent, asked why
PLAINTIFF wore a turban, and criticized his faith by telling him he is "not really a Christian."
After approximately three months of employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF was moved
to a different work area where automatic feeders that assisted with mixing process were not
properly working. PLAINTIFF had to manually mix the powder in a larger feeder, which
caused the anode powder to form a dust cloud above the mixture. PLAINTIFF breathed in
26
-2Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 50
1 this dust, which caused him several health issues including hives, nausea, migraines,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shortness of breath, and severely exacerbated his asthma.
In or around December 2021, PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisor, Sharma, that the
powder was causing him significant harm, that he already had asthma and was suffering
additional symptoms.
Rather than address PLAINTIFF's health concerns, Sharma mocked PLAINTIFF, telling him
to "stop crying like a baby." Sharma also insulted PLAINTIFF due to his multi-racial
background, making comments like "just feed the powder, little mutt," and calling him
"stupid" and "retarded."
After additional complaints by PLAINTIFF, Sharma told PLAINTIFF to get a note from a
doctor. PLAINTIFF went to his doctor at his local Kaiser Permanente hospital. PLAINTIFF
received a note from the doctor saying that due to his medical condition, PLAINTIFF needed
to stay away from the powder.
PLAINTIFF returned to work the following day and gave the doctor's note, containing private
medical information, to his team lead, a man known to him as Jack K. Jack K. told
PLAINTIFF that he would give the doctor's note to a supervisor.
A few minutes later, a coworker handed the doctor's note to PLAINTIFF, saying he found it
on the floor, where it was covered in dirt and black powder.
PLAINTIFF took the note to Sharma, explaining how it had been found on the floor, and
complained that his private medical information was being treated negligently. Sharma
ignored the complaints but took the note.
The following day, Sharma informed PLAINTIFF that he would take the doctor's note to
Human Resources and directed PLAINTIFF to continue working in the same location with
the noxious powders. PLAINTIFF suffered an outbreak of hives, a severe migraine, and
respiratory difficulties, but continued to work.
On the third day after PLAINTIFF procured the doctor's note, Sharma returned it to him and
informed him that he was required to deliver it to HR himself. PLAINTIFF took a photo of the
doctor's note and emailed it to Lewis Botsford ("Botsford"), a senior HR staffer with
DEFENDANT.
Botsford did not respond until approximately 10 days later, two weeks after PLAINTIFF
received the doctor's note, to inform PLAINTIFF that he was required to fill out forms
requesting accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In the two
weeks between PLAINTIFF's securing the note to Botsford's response, PLAINTIFF was
required to continue working in the same workspace with the same noxious powders that
the doctor told PLAINTIFF he should avoid-a fact of which Sharma was aware as soon as
PLAINTIFF received the doctor's note.
PLAINTIFF attempted to get the ADA application filled, but there was a problem between
PLAINTIFF's doctor and DEFENDANT's HR department, the details of which were never
fully explained to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT made no further effort to help PLAINTIFF
resolve the problem and HR staff told him that they were not allowed to help him fill out the
paperwork.
In or about mid-December 2021, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work with a more toxic
powder, which required him to dress in a papr hazmat suit. This made it difficult for
PLAINTIFF to breathe, causing additional flare-ups of his health problems. The air filtration
system that feeds air into the suit further aggravated his situation and triggered asthma
attacks. PLAINTIFF sent an email to Botsford complaining about this transfer, its impact on
26
-3Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
his health, and his belief that the transfer was meant to be an act of harassment by his
supervisors. PLAINTIFF was transferred back to his regular position within a few days.
While the problem with HR and the ADA appl ication was ongoing, PLAINTIFF continued to
work in the same workspace with the same noxious powders, which continued to cause him
significant health problems. When PLAINTIFF complained to his supervisors about the
health problems, they continued to ignore his complaints, unless they were belittling him for
his health problems and making slurs about his mixed-race heritage. PLAINTIFF complained
to Botsford about these insults, but Botsford did not respond .
Upon Botsford's failure to respond to PLAINTIFF's complaints, PLAINTIFF contacted
Botsford's superior, HR Manager Tracy Thomas ("Thomas"). After PLAINTIFF contacted
Thomas, Botsford responded finally. PLAINTIFF told Botsford that he believed Sharma was
being told of PLAINTIFF's complaints about Sharma's abusive behavior, because Sharma
began acting with greater hostility against PLAINTIFF.
On or about December 27, 2021 , PLAINTIFF complained to DEFENDANT's employee
relations staffer Benita Patel ("Patel") about the ongoing abuse by his superiors. This abuse
included racial taunts , calling him "carpet boy" and "brown boy" in reference to his Asian
heritage, while also telling him to "quit acting like a nigger" and "stop complain ing, it's just
powder."
On or about December 27, 2021, PLAINTIFF was called into a meeting with his supervisors
Baines, Corona, and Sharma. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF was asked why he refused to
work with the more toxic powder. PLAINTIFF explained that the papr hazmat suit and air
filtration system made his breathing difficult and triggered asthma attacks, which constitutes
a bona fide complaint about workplace health and safety. Later that day, PLAINTIFF
received an email from Sharma purporting to memorialize the meeting, but which grossly
mischaracterized what had occurred and accused PLAINTIFF of insubordination for refusing
the assignment.
Around this time, PLAINTIFF reached such a level of stress and anxiety that he reached out
directly to DEFENDANT's CEO Elon Musk to inform him about the constant abuse,
harassment, and retaliation he faced . Musk did not respond.
Approximately two weeks after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford, Thomas, and
Patel, he was moved under a different supervisor, Omar Corona ("Corona"). However,
PLAINTIFF worked with the same noxious powder and his health condition continued to
suffer.
PLAINTIFF regularly overheard Corona using racial and ethnic slurs toward other
employees, including telling a Caucasian employee, "Get back in there, whitey, you're acting
like a nigger." Corona continued to use abusive language and racial slurs against
PLAINTIFF, calling him "carpet boy" or "brown boy" no fewer than 20 times .
Approximately one month after PLAINTIFF made his complaints to Botsford, Thomas, and
Patel , he was moved to another workspace where he was not required to work with the
noxious powders. His health condition steadily improved , including fewer respiratory issues.
The reprieve was short-lived, as PLAINTIFF was returned to the powder-mixing position
three weeks later. His health began to deteriorate almost immediately on his return .
A short time after being reassigned to the powder mixing position, as his health condition
worsened, PLAINTIFF approached his team lead Jack K. and asked to go home on a day
when he was feeling especially ill. Jack K. told PLAINTIFF that if he left, he would receive a
25
26
-4-
Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed : February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 52
1
"point" in DEFENDANT's attendance system. In this system, 10 points in a six-month period
is grounds for termination.
2 In addition to continuing the disregard for PLAINTIFF's health concerns, Jack K. also
continued the pattern and practice of racial hostility, including calling PLAINTIFF a "terrorist"
3 in reference to his South Asian heritage.
On one such occasion, on or about January 3, 2022, PLAINTIFF was so upset that he had
4 to repair to a restroom to keep from breaking down publicly.
As PLAINTIFF was returning to work from the restroom, he was approached by Baines , who
5 asked if PLAINTIFF was a "female," as though that would be a reason for him to spend so
much time in the restroom. When PLAINTIFF responded that he was not feeling well, Baines
6
called him "a disgrace to Indians" and a "stupid Christian."
7 Later that day, PLAINTIFF sent Patel an email recounting the above incident with Baines,
describing it as an example of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation by his supervisors.
8 Not long after sending his email, PLAINTIFF received an email from Baines threatening
discipline for his use of the restroom. PLAINTIFF replied to Baines and the other supervisors
g cc'd on the email that this was another incident of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation.
PLAINTIFF faced other incidents of harassment and retaliation, and specific events meant
10 to cause him public humiliation and ostracism. On least three occasions, PLAINTIFF's
department had pizza parties to which PLAINTIFF was not invited, and at least one of which
11 PLAINTIFF was specifically told he was excluded from and was barred from entering the
room.
12 In or about early February 2022, PLAINTIFF was informed that he would be transferred to
the winding department. PLAINTIFF had not requested a transfer. PLAINTIFF later learned
13 that the same day he was transferred out of it, everybody in the department was given a
$2.00 per hour pay increase.
14
In addition to being racially harassed and socially outcast, PLAINTIFF was subjected to
sabotage in his work. On at least three occasions, while PLAINTIFF was mixing powder, he
15
requested assistance from a coworker to replenish his powder supply. When the coworker
went
to get more powder, the supervisor, Wade Bolinger ("Bolinger"), stopped the coworker
16
and engaged him in a conversation. Meanwhile, PLAINTIFF continued to yell to the
17 coworker that he was running out of powder. At some point, Baines came by to tell
PLAINTIFF that he was running low on powder and should have replenished his supply.
18 Before PLAINTIFF could explain that Bolinger was preventing the coworker from getting
more powder, Baines told PLAINTIFF he was doing a poor job and walked away.
19 In the winding department, where DEFENDANT transferred PLAINTIFF to avoid paying him
a $2.00 per hour wage increase, there are 12 machines that wind, but some produce worse
20 or better yields of "jelly rolls"-internal battery components-based on their current state of
repair. In addition to receiving insufficient training on the winding machines, PLAINTIFF
21 alleges that he was assigned to machines in various states of disrepair that routinely
produced a smaller number of jelly rolls. PLAINTIFF believes this was deliberate and
22 another attempt to sabotage his work.
PLAINTIFF had to leave his work area about 15 times per day to pick up cathode and anode
23
pancakes, which he had to retrieve from a warehouse on other side of department. This
effort constituted a five-minute walk to the supply, then sometimes a wait on the material. On
24
average, it was a 10-minute process followed by a five-minute walk back to his workstation;
25
26
-5Complaint - CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 53
1 he did this approximately 15 times per day. From that point, it took additional five minutes to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
resupply and prepare his workstation to operate again.
At least one time, Bolinger confronted PLAINTIFF, saying been missing for a long time.
PLAINTIFF explained that he was resupplying and accounted for his time, all tasks that fell
within his scope of duties. Bolinger in response said he did not care and told PLAINTIFF he
was getting a verbal warning.
The harassment continued with repeated accusations that PLAINTIFF was unjustifiably
away from his workstation when he was busy securing supplies necessary for doing his
work. Bolinger would call Baines, who would wait for PLAINTIFF, and upon his return falsely
accuse him of going "missing" for two hours. PLAINTIFF would correctly deny the
accusation and direct Baines to the surveillance cameras to confirm his story. The false
accusation would stand, but without confirmation.
At some point in early 2022, PLAINTIFF began to be followed by another employee, Ali E.,
who was a supervisor or superior in a different department. On one occasion, PLAINTIFF
was away from his workstation, Ali E., without any apparent authority to question
PLAINTIFF's whereabouts, sent PLAINTIFF a text message asking him why he was not at
his workstation. PLAINTIFF responded to Ali E. and said to leave him alone. PLAINTIFF
forwarded the text exchange to Baines, who responded with a "laughing face" emoji.
PLAINTIFF also faced disparate treatment on sick leave, as Bolinger and Baines promised
one thing but delivered another. On an occasion when PLAINTIFF was feeling unwell at
work and thought he might faint, he walked away from his workstation to get a drink of
water. When he did so, he was approached by Baines, who suggested that he might be
better off going home. After returning to work for about two hours, PLAINTIFF determined
that he could no longer work that day. PLAINTIFF approached Bolinger and said he was not
well and asked if he would get into trouble if he went home for the day. Bolinger told
PLAINTIFF that he would not get into any trouble.
When PLAINTIFF returned to work, he was ordered to attend a department meeting where
attendance issues were addressed. PLAINTIFF was directly challenged about the previous
week's incident and two others where he had to leave work for illness. PLAINTIFF replied
that he had asked Bolinger if there was any problem with going home early and was told
there was not; Bolinger denied this occurred. PLAINTIFF received disciplinary write-ups for
these absences.
PLAINTIFF continued to be routinely assigned to winding machines that were somehow
faulty and did not produce at full capacity. While coworkers were rotated through the
machines, PLAINTIFF was ordered to use the faulty machines and was not provided a
winding partner which caused difficulty in the operations of the machines. Nonetheless, he
continued to reach or nearly reach his production quotas on a regular basis.
PLAINTIFF was also subjected to public humiliation, including being singled out for
ostracism, when team leaders pointed him out to new hires as someone to avoid, pointing to
him and describing him as "the wrong crowd" and someone they "should not hang out with."
After approximately three months in the winding department, PLAINTIFF received a threemonth review from Bolinger - the only performance review he received-where he was
criticized for failing to keep up with the production quotas. Bolinger threatened PLAINTIFF
that he would never advance in the company. PLAINTIFF was not given a copy of the
review.
25
26
-6Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In or about July 2022, PLAINTIFF complained to Baines that Ali E. was continuing to follow
and harass him, including following him to the restroom, which Baines denied. PLAINTIFF
asked how many other employees were being similarly surveilled; Baines did not respond to
the question. PLAINTIFF asked if this was discrimination against him; Baines again did not
answer the question.
In or about August 2022, PLAINTIFF overheard Ali E. say to another employee words to the
effect of "you're being lazy. I thought Mexicans were supposed to work harder." Being part
Mexican, PLAINTIFF took offense to this. He later complained to HR about this and was led
to believe that an investigation was undertaken.
On or about August 6, 2022, upon learning that Bolinger was being transferred to Texas,
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Ali E., Bains, Bolinger, and others, stating he discovered on
an internal HR portal several writeups that needed to be corrected before Bolinger left
because some came under Bolinger's supervision, and because Bollinger had given
PLAINTIFF permission to take requested time off that he was then written up for. PLAINTIFF
stated that he felt these writeups were in effort to push him out and to fire him, that he felt
retaliated against and might take matters higher up. PLAINTIFF stated that he loved his job
at Tesla and wanted to be a part of its future in sustainable energy. PLAINTIFF received no
response to this message.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF wrote Aenoi V. Jones of Human Resources in a
higher division ("Jones") that he tried to contact someone about his problems with his
supervisors but was being redirected to his direct HR contact with whom he did not feel
comfortable speaking because he believed that person communicated his complaints to
those he complained about and was requesting someone else to speak with about his
complaints.
Jones replied on August 8, 2022, directing PLAINTIFF to reach out to the Senior HR
Manager, Nicole Burgers ("Burgers"), and provided him with her email address and phone
number.
On or about August 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF called Burgers on the phone and told her his work
performance was being sabotaged, that he was experience discrimination and harassment
and told her about the investigation that he understood was started. Burgers told PLAINTIFF
she would look into the investigation.
On or about September 8, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a text message to Burgers stating that he
has multiple writeups and just received a final writeup on the internal HR portal. Burgers
replied on September 9, 2022, stating she would look into it.
On or about September 8 or 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent a message to his direct supervisors,
HR, his HR manager's manager, and their managers, totaling 10-11 recipients. An
investigator sent a message to PLAINTIFF stating she was working on the investigation and
asked him to give her more information, which he did.
Sometime thereabout, PLAINTIFF sent a message to Thomas, his direct HR Manager, but
she did not open his message, which he confirmed through "read receipts" in the messaging
app. PLAINTIFF's message had similar content to what he told Burgers. Thomas did not
respond.
On or about September 23, 2022, PLAINTIFF was called on the phone by Daniel Donenfeld,
HR Partner, Vehicle Engineering & Cell Manufacturing Operations ("Donenfeld") and James
Wall, who is the manager above Baines ("Wall"). Donenfeld left PLAINTIFF a voice mail and
Wall sent a message to him on an internal messaging app, asking if they could schedule a
26
-7Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
call that day. PLAINTIFF confirmed, and they later spoke to PLAINTIFF together and told
him that due to safety reasons, PLAINTIFF's status of employment changed to termination
and that it's a final decision that cannot be changed. They also mentioned they reviewed the
warnings on his profile, and told PLAINTIFF to email HR if he has any questions.
PLAINTIFF sent a message to Donenfeld stating that his verbal and non-verbal warnings
were invalid, and Mr. Donenfeld replied Hi Vincent, all allegations were raised to appropriate
parties and action is taken.
On or about October 9, 2022, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Donenfeld asking the reason he
was terminated . Donenfeld wrote back that "The reason for your termination is because it is
more likely than not that you violated Tesla's policy."
On or about October 21, 2022, PLAINTIFF replied to Mr. Donenfeld asking which policy was
violated. PLAINTIFF never received any reply from Mr. Donenfeld.
PLAINTIFF alleges that he was terminated for pretextual reasons motivated by
discrimination based on race, religion, and disability, and in retaliation for complaining about
harassment and health and safety hazards.
As a result of the unlawful conduct by DEFENDANT and Does 1-50 as set forth in this
Complaint, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, serious
emotional suffering and damages, and other damages as will be proved at the time of trial.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-8Complaint - CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed: February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
PDF Page 56
1 VERIFICATION
2
3
4
5
6
I, Vincent Singh, am the Complainant in the above-entitled complaint. I have read
the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own
knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
On February 10, 2023, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Stockton, CA
7
8
9
\
Vincent sin gh (Feb 13, 2023 10:39 PST)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-911---------------------------------~
Complaint- CRD No. 202302-19577802
27
Date Filed : February 10, 2023
28
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 12/22)
Back to 
