Page 1
Mike Arias, Esq. (CSB #115385)
Sahar Malek, Esq. (CSB #283863)
Brenda Wong, Esq. (CSB #328543)
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
6701 Center Drive West, Suite Los Angeles, California Telephone: (310) 844-Facsimile: (310) 861-Email: Mike@aswtlawyers.com
Email: Sahar@aswtlawyers.com
Email: Brenda@aswtlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.
RICARDO GARCIA, an Individual;
vs.
TESLA, INC., doing business in California
as TESLA MOTORS, INC.; IVAN DOE, an
Individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive,
Defendants.
1. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Govt Code §§12940 et. seq.)
2. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Unruh Civil Rights Act)
3. RACIAL HARASSMENT (Govt
Code §§12940 et. seq.)
4. INTERFERENCE WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
5. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT
6. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
8. NEGLIGENT HIRING,
RETENTION AND
SUPERVISION
9. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
COME NOW, PLAINTIFF, who complains and alleges as follows:
///
///
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 2
I.
BACKGROUND
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
1.
This is a case of racially motivated harassment and intimidation in which the
Tesla factories have been systematically turned into a racially hostile work environment. The
Defendants have not only refused to take the necessary steps to prevent and eliminate such
racial harassment and intimidation but rather, have affirmatively obstructed attempts to
remedy the harassment which is rampant in Tesla’s factories. Each Plaintiff named herein
has been harmed by Tesla’s environment of perpetual discrimination, harassment, retaliation
and hostility.
II.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
2.
PLAINTIFF has fully and timely exhausted his statutory administrative
remedies. A true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF’S Right-to-Sue Notice is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit “A.”
III.
PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff RICARDO GARCIA (hereinafter “GARCIA”) was at all relevant
times a resident of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, and an employee of
Defendant TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS, INC.
(“TESLA”).
4.
Defendant TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS,
INC. is now and was at all times relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating
in and under the laws of the State of California and conducting business throughout
California. Up until December 1, 2021, TESLA’s corporate headquarters were located at
3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California 94304. TESLA designs, manufactures, and sells
electric vehicles and solar panels.
5.
As of this filing, TESLA operates out of numerous factories in California,
including two electric vehicle manufacturing factories located in Fremont, California and in
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 3 ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Lathrop, California, and a solar and storage factory located at Foster City, California. The
Fremont factory, located at 45500 Fremont Blvd., Fremont, California 94538, is the original
site of TESLA’s electric vehicle production. The Lathrop factory is located at 18280 S. Haran
Road, Lathrop CA 95330. TESLA’s Solar and Storage factory is located at Foster City
Boulevard, Foster City, California 94404. The harassing conduct at issue took place at each
location. Due to TESLA’s ownership of these locations, its day-to-day managerial role in
the several factories, its right to hire, fire and discipline the employees, and its control of all
terms and conditions of PLAINTIFF’S employment, TESLA is PLAINTIFF’S FEHA
employer, or alternatively, a joint employer, which provides employment pursuant to
contract.
6.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, TESLA was an “employer” subject to
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and all other applicable statutes.
7.
Defendant IVAN DOE (hereinafter “IVAN DOE”) was at all relevant times a
resident of the State of California, and a managing agent of Defendant TESLA. Defendant
IVAN DOE was at all relevant times a Supervisor to Plaintiff GARCIA.
8.
DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued herein pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure §474. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the
DEFENDANTS sued herein under the fictious names and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.
PLAINTIFF will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the
same are ascertained.
fictitiously named Defendants are legally responsible for the occurrences, injuries, and
damages herein.
9.
PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and alleges that each of the
TESLA, its managing agents identified in this Complaint, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, are collectively referred to herein as “DEFENDANTS”.
10.
PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and alleges that at all relevant times, each
Defendant is, and was, the director, agent, employee, and/or representative of every other
Defendant and acted within the course and scope of their agency, service, employment,
and/or representation, and that each Defendant herein is jointly and severally responsible and
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 4 ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
liable to PLAINTIFF for damages hereinafter alleged. At all relevant times, there existed a
unity of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the Defendants such that
any individuality and separateness between or among those Defendants ceased, and
Defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control
over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of Defendants does
not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. All of the acts and failures to act alleged
herein were duly performed by and attributed to all Defendants, each acting as the joint
employer as Defendants jointly supervised and controlled workers’ conditions of
employment, determined assignments, rate of pay or method of payment, had authority to
hire or fire workers, and maintained employment records. All actions of all Defendants were
taken by workers, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with
all Defendants, were taken on behalf of all Defendants, and were engaged in, authorized,
ratified, and approved by all other Defendants.
IV.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11.
TESLA stands as the largest and highest-profile electric car company in the
world, however, its standard operating procedures include blatant, open and unmitigated race
discrimination. Racial harassment and discrimination have run rampant and continue to do
so at TESLA despite DEFENDANTS’ knowledge of the harassment and/or discrimination,
and DEFENDANTS have done little to nothing to reasonably prevent or stop this toxic
behavior and work environment.
12.
DEFENDANTS have a practice of creating and/or failing to prevent a hostile
work environment at TESLA. PLAINTIFF, who is a Hispanic employee, has been subjected
to offensive racist comments and offensive racist behavior and discipline by colleagues,
leads, supervisors, managers, and/or Human Resources personnel on a daily basis.
13.
At all times relevant, Plaintiff GARCIA was employed by TESLA, at its
Fremont, California factory, beginning November 18, 2021, as a production associate, until
his termination on February 10, 2022. GARCIA is a Hispanic man.
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 5
The harassment towards GARCIA began shortly after he began working in the
Door 3 EOL Break and Rolls Department, where he was constantly harassed by the
supervisors and leads in the department.
15.
GARCIA found his employment at TESLA increasingly difficult to tolerate
due to the daily racial discrimination and harassment that he had to ensure throughout his
shifts. GARCIA’s leads, supervisors and managers continuously targeted him on the basis
of his race.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
14.
16.
Throughout his employment with TESLA, PLAINTIFF was targeted for
harassment on the basis of his race. The harassment included being written up for actions
that other non-Hispanic employees were not written up for, being threatened that he would
get fired if he spoke with anyone even though other non-Hispanic employees were allowed
to speak to anyone without threat of termination, not being allowed to take full breaks and
being written up or disciplined if he did while non-Hispanic employees were allowed to take
full or extended breaks without consequence, etc.
17.
Plaintiff was confronted with this type of behavior and harassment on a daily
basis and was subjected to witnessing other Hispanic employees have to endure the same
treatment.
18.
Defendant IVAN DOE was GARCIA’s supervisors. Defendant IVAN DOE
constantly harassed and belittled GARCIA by insisting, under the threat of discipline, that
GARCIA meet his daily quotas while other non-Hispanic employees who worked alongside
GARCIA were not treated the same way. In fact, these other individuals did not work during
their shifts, openly took naps while on the clock, ate, took extended breaks and hung out idly
without any threats of discipline. GARCIA, and other Hispanic employees, would be forced
to do the work that the non-Hispanic employees were not doing and would be threatened with
discipline if the work was not completed. The actions of IVAN DOE were direct results of
TESLA’s racist culture and hiring practices.
19.
Further, when GARCIA complained to his supervisor about the harassment
and questioned why he was the recipient of the treatment, his supervisor responded that
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 6
GARCIA was part of a list of people who were targeted for such treatment.
embarrassed, confused and belittled, GARCIA walked away.
In January 2022, GARCIA was involved in a minor collision with one of the
vehicles at the factory. Despite the collision, there was no damage to the vehicle. Despite
this, he was written up for the collision. On the same day, a Caucasian colleague was also
involved in a collision with a vehicle in the factory. That collision yielded some damage to
the vehicle. The colleague was not written up nor received any discipline for the collision.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
20.
Feeling
21.
One month later, GARCIA’s transmission died and he was unable to make it
to work. He texted his supervisor, and called several of TESLA’s phone numbers to notify
them that he was not able to come into work and was going to take an absence for the day.
22.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein.
23.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
24.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
25.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
Government Code §§12940(a) and (j), which prohibits an employer from discriminating
against an employee on the basis of race and color.
26.
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial discrimination
that was rampant in its factories.
27.
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial discrimination against
Plaintiff.
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 7
28.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
29.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
response to complaints of racial discrimination was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
harms.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
30.
31.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT (Cal. Civ. Code §51)
(Against all Defendants)
32.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.
33.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
34.
Plaintiff is a minority, specifically of Hispanic descent.
35.
Defendant TESLA is a business establishment for the purposes of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
36.
Defendant TESLA intentionally acted in discriminatory manners in its
business establishment against Plaintiff. Defendant TESLA’s supervisors, managers, leads,
employees and agents used racist slurs, epithets, and imagery to discriminate, harass and
intimidate Plaintiff; ignored complaints and reports regarding the discrimination,
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 8
harassment, and intimidation; and prevented Plaintiff from accessing full and equal
accommodations, advantages, and privileges in retaliation for reporting and complaining
about the discrimination, harassment and intimidation.
Defendant TESLA’s violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act caused Plaintiff
to suffer harm as set forth herein.
38.
As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
statutory damages of a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages, or a minimum
of $4,000.00.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
37.
39.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
40.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
41.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein.
42.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
43.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
44.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
Government Code §§12940(a) and (j), which prohibits an employer from discriminating
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 9
against and harassing an employee on the basis of race and color.
45.
in manners that constitute racial harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA.
Plaintiff was subjected to working in a racially hostile work environment which led to
interferences with his work performances, was denied employment privileges, and was
adversely affected relating to the terms and conditions of his job on the basis of race.
46.
The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected was so severe, widespread
and/or persistent that a reasonable Hispanic person in Plaintiff’s shoes would have considered
the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.
47.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant TESLA and its managers, supervisors, leads and employees acted
abusive.
48.
Plaintiff believed and considered the work environment to be hostile and/or
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial harassment that
ran rampant in its factories.
49.
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial harassment against
Plaintiff.
50.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
51.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
response to complaints of racial harassment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
harms.
52.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
53.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 10
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
(Cal. Civ. Code §52.1)
(Against all Defendants)
54.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein.
55.
Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s constitutional right entitling him to
equal protection.
56.
Defendant TESLA adopted the conduct, through its officers, directors,
managing agents and/or supervisory employees. Defendant TESLA further ratified the
conduct by failing to take appropriate corrective or remedial action.
57.
A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was Plaintiff’s race.
58.
Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination on
the basis of race as set forth herein and permitted working conditions and a workplace
environment that denied Plaintiff his constitutional right to equal protection.
59.
Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer, and continue to suffer, damages
as set forth herein.
60.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
61.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
///
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
(Cal. Govt. Code §12940 et. seq.)
(Against all Defendants)
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
62.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein.
63.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
64.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
65.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
Government Code §§12940 et. seq.
66.
Defendant TESLA and its managers, supervisors, leads and employees acted
in manners that constitute racial harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA.
Plaintiff was subjected to working in a racially hostile work environment which led to
interferences with their work performances, were denied employment privileges, and were
adversely affected relating to the terms and conditions of their jobs on the basis of race.
67.
The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected was so severe, widespread
and/or persistent that a reasonable Hispanic person in Plaintiff’s shoes would have considered
the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.
68.
Plaintiff believed and considered the work environment to be hostile and/or
abusive.
69.
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial harassment that
ran rampant in its factories.
70.
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial harassment against
Plaintiff.
71.
Despite being on notice of Defendant TESLA’s employees’ propensity to
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 12
engage in harassing conduct, Defendant TESLA failed to act to prevent employees from
harassing and/or discriminating against Plaintiff.
72.
to distribute it appropriately and failed to effectively train its employees on racial harassment
and discrimination.
73.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
74.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
response to complaints of racial harassment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
harms.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant TESLA failed to enact an anti-discrimination policy and/or failed
75.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
76.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against all Defendants)
77.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 76 as though fully set forth herein.
78.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee or contractor of
Defendant TESLA.
79.
As an employee/contractor of Defendant TESLA, Plaintiff was owed a duty of
due care by Defendants, and each of them, to ensure that Plaintiff was not exposed to
foreseeable harms.
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 13
Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that Plaintiff was
being subjected to racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and that, by failing to
exercise due care to prevent racially harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct,
Plaintiff could and would suffer serious emotional distress.
81.
Defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise their duty of due care to
prevent their employees, managers, leads, supervisors and/or officers from racially harassing,
discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
80.
82.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and psychological damage.
This includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, grief, fear, depression
and anxiety.
83.
Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
84.
Defendants’ acts were malicious and oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff and other minority employees of Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and
therefore believes, and based thereon alleges, that managing agents ratified the wrongful
conduct of the Defendants’ employees, because they were aware of this conduct and failed
to take immediate remedial action, and retained the errant employees after Plaintiff’s reports
of the oppressive conduct.
85.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harms he suffered.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against all Defendants)
86.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 85 as though fully set forth herein.
87.
Defendant TESLA was aware of the complaints regarding constant racial
abuse, discrimination and harassment in its facilities and toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 14
Defendants that the discrimination and harassment caused them distress, humiliation, and
suffering.
88.
Plaintiff would continue to suffer extreme emotional distress and harm as a result of
Defendants’ failure to act.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant knew that, by failing to take corrective and/or remedial action,
89.
As a direct and consequential result of Defendants’ actions and inactions,
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress to their persons including, but not limited to,
pain, anxiety, humiliation, anger, frustration, shame, embarrassment and fear.
90.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harm they suffered.
91.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION
(Against all Defendants)
92.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 91 as though fully set forth herein.
93.
Upon information and belief, Defendants, by and through its agents and
employees, knew, or reasonably should have known through reasonable investigation, of
some of its agents and/or employees’ propensity for unlawful racially harassing and
discriminatory behavior.
94.
Defendants had a duty not to hire or retain these employees/agents given their
wrongful, dangerous, and racially offensive propensities, and to provide reasonable
supervision of these employees/agents.
95.
Defendants negligently hired, retained, and/or failed to adequately supervise
these employees/agents in their positions where they were able to commit the wrongful acts
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 15
against Plaintiff as alleged herein. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of
these employees/agents despite knowing of their propensities and complaints made against
them.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress and psychological damage. This
includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, grief, fear, depression and
anxiety.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
96.
97.
Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
98.
Defendants’ acts were malicious and oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff and other minority employees of Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and
therefore believes, and based thereon alleges, that managing agents ratified the wrongful
conduct of the Defendants’ employees, because they were aware of this conduct and failed
to take immediate remedial action, and retained the errant employees after Plaintiff’s and
others’ reports of the oppressive conduct.
99.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harms he suffered.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION
(Against Defendant TESLA and DOES 1-50)
100.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 99 as though fully set forth herein.
101.
Defendant TESLA.
102.
Defendant TESLA punished Plaintiff by terminating his employment.
103.
Plaintiff GARCIA engaged in protected activity when he reported instances of
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee/contractor of
racism and harassment to his supervisors.
104.
Without justification or basis in fact, Defendant TESLA terminated Plaintiff
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 16
GARCIA’s employment.
105.
discriminatory motives and was contrary to the policies, rules, regulations and laws of the
State of California which are in substantial part designed to protect employees from
discriminatory, harassing, retaliatory and otherwise harmful or unlawful conduct. These
policies are included in the Constitution of the State of California and California Government
Codes.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was based on
106.
Defendants’ violations of these constitutional and statutory provisions caused
Plaintiff to suffer harm as set forth herein.
107.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
incurred in bringing this action.
108.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.
General damages according to proof and in an amount no less than the
jurisdictional limit of this court;
2.
Special damages in amounts according to proof, together with prejudgment
interest;
3.
Exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
4.
Civil penalties pursuant to California Civil Code §§52(a), 52(b)(2), and 52.1,
and California Labor Code §1102.5;
5.
Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code §§52(a), 52(b)(3),
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 17
and 52.1(h), and California Government Code §12965(b);
6.
Interest as allowed by law;
7.
Costs of suit incurred herein;
8.
Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide better training and
enforcement of prevention of racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation; development
of effective policies and procedures to ensure that effective remedial measures are taken upon
reporting of harassment; and
9.
Such other and further relief that the court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 21,
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
By:
MIKE ARIAS
SAHAR MALEK
BRENDA WONG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated: April 21,
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
By:
MIKE ARIAS
SAHAR MALEK
BRENDA WONG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Page
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPage 19 EXHIBIT APage 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, Brenda Wong
6701 Center Drive West, Suite Los Angeles, CA RE:
Notice to Complainant’s Attorney
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
Dear Brenda Wong:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, RE:
Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A
copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code
section 12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation
of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the
right to participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both
the employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged
with the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free
mediation program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s
Dispute Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate
whether they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a
civil action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time
period specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. You may
contact DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter
number indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, RICARDO GARCIA
C/O Arias Sanguintti Wang & Torrijos, LLP - 6701 Center Drive West, #Los Angeles, CA RE:
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
Dear RICARDO GARCIA:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective April 26, because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code section
12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the
California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to
participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both the
employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged with
the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free mediation
program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute
Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether
they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period
specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. Contact
DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter number
indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 25
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of
DFEH No. 202204-
RICARDO GARCIA
Complainant,
vs.
TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX
IVAN Unknown
45500 Fremont Blvd
Fremont, CA ManpowerGroup US Inc.
100 Manpower Place
Milwaukee, WI Respondents
1. Respondent TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS, INC. is an
employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.
Code, § 12900 et seq.).
2.Complainant is naming IVAN Unknown individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming ManpowerGroup US Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
3. Complainant RICARDO GARCIA, resides in the City of Los Angeles, State of CA.
4. Complainant alleges that on or about February 10, 2022, respondent took the
23 following adverse actions:
24 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, ancestry, national origin
(includes language restrictions), color, other, association with a member of a protected
class.
-1Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-
Date Filed: April 26,
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 26 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry,
2 national origin (includes language restrictions), color, other, association with a member of a
protected class and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied hire or
3 promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, asked impermissible non-job-related questions,
denied any employment benefit or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or
4 assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
5 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment
complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied
equal pay, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit
or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
9 Additional Complaint Details:
-2Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-
Date Filed: April 26,
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)Page 27 1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Brenda Wong, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
On April 26, 2022, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Los Angeles, California
-3Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-
Date Filed: April 26,
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mike Arias, Esq. (CSB #115385)
Sahar Malek, Esq. (CSB #283863)
Brenda Wong, Esq. (CSB #328543)
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
Email: Mike@aswtlawyers.com
Email: Sahar@aswtlawyers.com
Email: Brenda@aswtlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
11
12
15
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs,
13
14
CASE NO.
RICARDO GARCIA, an Individual;
vs.
TESLA, INC., doing business in California
as TESLA MOTORS, INC.; IVAN DOE, an
Individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Govt Code §§12940 et. seq.)
2. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Unruh Civil Rights Act)
3. RACIAL HARASSMENT (Govt
Code §§12940 et. seq.)
4. INTERFERENCE WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
5. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT
6. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
8. NEGLIGENT HIRING,
RETENTION AND
SUPERVISION
9. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
25
26
COME NOW, PLAINTIFF, who complains and alleges as follows:
27
///
28
///
Page 1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 3
1
I.
2
BACKGROUND
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
3
1.
This is a case of racially motivated harassment and intimidation in which the
4
Tesla factories have been systematically turned into a racially hostile work environment. The
5
Defendants have not only refused to take the necessary steps to prevent and eliminate such
6
racial harassment and intimidation but rather, have affirmatively obstructed attempts to
7
remedy the harassment which is rampant in Tesla’s factories. Each Plaintiff named herein
8
has been harmed by Tesla’s environment of perpetual discrimination, harassment, retaliation
9
and hostility.
10
II.
11
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
12
2.
PLAINTIFF has fully and timely exhausted his statutory administrative
13
remedies. A true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF’S Right-to-Sue Notice is attached to this
14
Complaint as Exhibit “A.”
15
III.
16
PARTIES
17
3.
Plaintiff RICARDO GARCIA (hereinafter “GARCIA”) was at all relevant
18
times a resident of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, and an employee of
19
Defendant TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS, INC.
20
(“TESLA”).
21
4.
Defendant TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS,
22
INC. is now and was at all times relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating
23
in and under the laws of the State of California and conducting business throughout
24
California. Up until December 1, 2021, TESLA’s corporate headquarters were located at
25
3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California 94304. TESLA designs, manufactures, and sells
26
electric vehicles and solar panels.
27
28
5.
As of this filing, TESLA operates out of numerous factories in California,
including two electric vehicle manufacturing factories located in Fremont, California and in
Page 2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 4
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
1
Lathrop, California, and a solar and storage factory located at Foster City, California. The
2
Fremont factory, located at 45500 Fremont Blvd., Fremont, California 94538, is the original
3
site of TESLA’s electric vehicle production. The Lathrop factory is located at 18280 S. Haran
4
Road, Lathrop CA 95330. TESLA’s Solar and Storage factory is located at Foster City
5
Boulevard, Foster City, California 94404. The harassing conduct at issue took place at each
6
location. Due to TESLA’s ownership of these locations, its day-to-day managerial role in
7
the several factories, its right to hire, fire and discipline the employees, and its control of all
8
terms and conditions of PLAINTIFF’S employment, TESLA is PLAINTIFF’S FEHA
9
employer, or alternatively, a joint employer, which provides employment pursuant to
10
contract.
11
6.
12
13
At all times relevant to this Complaint, TESLA was an “employer” subject to
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and all other applicable statutes.
7.
Defendant IVAN DOE (hereinafter “IVAN DOE”) was at all relevant times a
14
resident of the State of California, and a managing agent of Defendant TESLA. Defendant
15
IVAN DOE was at all relevant times a Supervisor to Plaintiff GARCIA.
16
8.
DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued herein pursuant to
17
Code of Civil Procedure §474. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the
18
DEFENDANTS sued herein under the fictious names and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.
19
PLAINTIFF will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the
20
same are ascertained.
21
fictitiously named Defendants are legally responsible for the occurrences, injuries, and
22
damages herein.
23
9.
24
25
PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and alleges that each of the
TESLA, its managing agents identified in this Complaint, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, are collectively referred to herein as “DEFENDANTS”.
10.
PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and alleges that at all relevant times, each
26
Defendant is, and was, the director, agent, employee, and/or representative of every other
27
Defendant and acted within the course and scope of their agency, service, employment,
28
and/or representation, and that each Defendant herein is jointly and severally responsible and
Page 3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 5
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
1
liable to PLAINTIFF for damages hereinafter alleged. At all relevant times, there existed a
2
unity of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the Defendants such that
3
any individuality and separateness between or among those Defendants ceased, and
4
Defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control
5
over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of Defendants does
6
not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. All of the acts and failures to act alleged
7
herein were duly performed by and attributed to all Defendants, each acting as the joint
8
employer as Defendants jointly supervised and controlled workers’ conditions of
9
employment, determined assignments, rate of pay or method of payment, had authority to
10
hire or fire workers, and maintained employment records. All actions of all Defendants were
11
taken by workers, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with
12
all Defendants, were taken on behalf of all Defendants, and were engaged in, authorized,
13
ratified, and approved by all other Defendants.
14
IV.
15
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16
11.
TESLA stands as the largest and highest-profile electric car company in the
17
world, however, its standard operating procedures include blatant, open and unmitigated race
18
discrimination. Racial harassment and discrimination have run rampant and continue to do
19
so at TESLA despite DEFENDANTS’ knowledge of the harassment and/or discrimination,
20
and DEFENDANTS have done little to nothing to reasonably prevent or stop this toxic
21
behavior and work environment.
22
12.
DEFENDANTS have a practice of creating and/or failing to prevent a hostile
23
work environment at TESLA. PLAINTIFF, who is a Hispanic employee, has been subjected
24
to offensive racist comments and offensive racist behavior and discipline by colleagues,
25
leads, supervisors, managers, and/or Human Resources personnel on a daily basis.
26
13.
At all times relevant, Plaintiff GARCIA was employed by TESLA, at its
27
Fremont, California factory, beginning November 18, 2021, as a production associate, until
28
his termination on February 10, 2022. GARCIA is a Hispanic man.
Page 4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 6
1
The harassment towards GARCIA began shortly after he began working in the
2
Door 3 EOL Break and Rolls Department, where he was constantly harassed by the
3
supervisors and leads in the department.
4
15.
GARCIA found his employment at TESLA increasingly difficult to tolerate
5
due to the daily racial discrimination and harassment that he had to ensure throughout his
6
shifts. GARCIA’s leads, supervisors and managers continuously targeted him on the basis
7
of his race.
8
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
14.
16.
Throughout his employment with TESLA, PLAINTIFF was targeted for
9
harassment on the basis of his race. The harassment included being written up for actions
10
that other non-Hispanic employees were not written up for, being threatened that he would
11
get fired if he spoke with anyone even though other non-Hispanic employees were allowed
12
to speak to anyone without threat of termination, not being allowed to take full breaks and
13
being written up or disciplined if he did while non-Hispanic employees were allowed to take
14
full or extended breaks without consequence, etc.
15
17.
Plaintiff was confronted with this type of behavior and harassment on a daily
16
basis and was subjected to witnessing other Hispanic employees have to endure the same
17
treatment.
18
18.
Defendant IVAN DOE was GARCIA’s supervisors. Defendant IVAN DOE
19
constantly harassed and belittled GARCIA by insisting, under the threat of discipline, that
20
GARCIA meet his daily quotas while other non-Hispanic employees who worked alongside
21
GARCIA were not treated the same way. In fact, these other individuals did not work during
22
their shifts, openly took naps while on the clock, ate, took extended breaks and hung out idly
23
without any threats of discipline. GARCIA, and other Hispanic employees, would be forced
24
to do the work that the non-Hispanic employees were not doing and would be threatened with
25
discipline if the work was not completed. The actions of IVAN DOE were direct results of
26
TESLA’s racist culture and hiring practices.
27
28
19.
Further, when GARCIA complained to his supervisor about the harassment
and questioned why he was the recipient of the treatment, his supervisor responded that
Page 5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 7
1
GARCIA was part of a list of people who were targeted for such treatment.
2
embarrassed, confused and belittled, GARCIA walked away.
3
In January 2022, GARCIA was involved in a minor collision with one of the
4
vehicles at the factory. Despite the collision, there was no damage to the vehicle. Despite
5
this, he was written up for the collision. On the same day, a Caucasian colleague was also
6
involved in a collision with a vehicle in the factory. That collision yielded some damage to
7
the vehicle. The colleague was not written up nor received any discipline for the collision.
8
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
20.
Feeling
21.
One month later, GARCIA’s transmission died and he was unable to make it
9
to work. He texted his supervisor, and called several of TESLA’s phone numbers to notify
10
them that he was not able to come into work and was going to take an absence for the day.
11
The next day, he was terminated.
12
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (Cal. Govt. Code §12940 et. seq.)
14
(Against all Defendants)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein.
23.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
24.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
25.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
22
Government Code §§12940(a) and (j), which prohibits an employer from discriminating
23
against an employee on the basis of race and color.
24
25
26
26.
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial discrimination
that was rampant in its factories.
27.
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
27
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial discrimination against
28
Plaintiff.
Page 6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 8
1
28.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
2
29.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
3
response to complaints of racial discrimination was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
4
harms.
5
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
6
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
7
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
8
incurred in bringing this action.
9
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
30.
31.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
10
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
11
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
12
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
13
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
14
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
15
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS
16
ACT (Cal. Civ. Code §51)
17
(Against all Defendants)
18
19
20
21
32.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.
33.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
22
34.
Plaintiff is a minority, specifically of Hispanic descent.
23
35.
Defendant TESLA is a business establishment for the purposes of the Unruh
24
Civil Rights Act.
25
36.
Defendant TESLA intentionally acted in discriminatory manners in its
26
business establishment against Plaintiff. Defendant TESLA’s supervisors, managers, leads,
27
employees and agents used racist slurs, epithets, and imagery to discriminate, harass and
28
intimidate Plaintiff; ignored complaints and reports regarding the discrimination,
Page 7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 9
1
harassment, and intimidation; and prevented Plaintiff from accessing full and equal
2
accommodations, advantages, and privileges in retaliation for reporting and complaining
3
about the discrimination, harassment and intimidation.
4
5
6
Defendant TESLA’s violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act caused Plaintiff
to suffer harm as set forth herein.
38.
As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
7
statutory damages of a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages, or a minimum
8
of $4,000.00.
9
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
37.
39.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
10
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
11
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
12
incurred in bringing this action.
13
40.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
14
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
15
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
16
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
17
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
18
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19
RACIAL HARRASMENT (Cal. Govt. Code §12940 et. seq.)
20
(Against all Defendants)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein.
42.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
43.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
44.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
Government Code §§12940(a) and (j), which prohibits an employer from discriminating
Page 8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 10
1
against and harassing an employee on the basis of race and color.
45.
2
3
in manners that constitute racial harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA.
4
Plaintiff was subjected to working in a racially hostile work environment which led to
5
interferences with his work performances, was denied employment privileges, and was
6
adversely affected relating to the terms and conditions of his job on the basis of race.
46.
7
The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected was so severe, widespread
8
and/or persistent that a reasonable Hispanic person in Plaintiff’s shoes would have considered
9
the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.
47.
10
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant TESLA and its managers, supervisors, leads and employees acted
11
abusive.
48.
12
13
Plaintiff believed and considered the work environment to be hostile and/or
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial harassment that
ran rampant in its factories.
49.
14
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
15
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial harassment against
16
Plaintiff.
17
50.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
18
51.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
19
response to complaints of racial harassment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
20
harms.
21
52.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
22
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
23
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
24
incurred in bringing this action.
25
53.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
26
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
27
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
28
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
Page 9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 11
1
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
2
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
4
(Cal. Civ. Code §52.1)
5
(Against all Defendants)
54.
6
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
7
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein.
8
55.
Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s constitutional right entitling him to
9
equal protection.
10
56.
Defendant TESLA adopted the conduct, through its officers, directors,
11
managing agents and/or supervisory employees. Defendant TESLA further ratified the
12
conduct by failing to take appropriate corrective or remedial action.
13
57.
A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was Plaintiff’s race.
14
58.
Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination on
15
the basis of race as set forth herein and permitted working conditions and a workplace
16
environment that denied Plaintiff his constitutional right to equal protection.
17
59.
Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer, and continue to suffer, damages
18
as set forth herein.
19
60.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
20
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
21
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
22
incurred in bringing this action.
61.
23
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
24
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
25
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
26
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
27
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
28
///
Page 10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 12
1
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
3
(Cal. Govt. Code §12940 et. seq.)
4
(Against all Defendants)
5
6
7
8
9
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
10
11
12
13
62.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein.
63.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant
TESLA.
64.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant TESLA was an employer as
defined under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
65.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was covered by FEHA,
Government Code §§12940 et. seq.
66.
Defendant TESLA and its managers, supervisors, leads and employees acted
14
in manners that constitute racial harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA.
15
Plaintiff was subjected to working in a racially hostile work environment which led to
16
interferences with their work performances, were denied employment privileges, and were
17
adversely affected relating to the terms and conditions of their jobs on the basis of race.
18
67.
The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected was so severe, widespread
19
and/or persistent that a reasonable Hispanic person in Plaintiff’s shoes would have considered
20
the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.
21
22
23
24
25
68.
Plaintiff believed and considered the work environment to be hostile and/or
abusive.
69.
Defendant TESLA knew or should have known of the racial harassment that
ran rampant in its factories.
70.
Defendant TESLA consistently and continuously failed to take any action to
26
address, prevent, remedy, correct, eliminate or alleviate the racial harassment against
27
Plaintiff.
28
71.
Despite being on notice of Defendant TESLA’s employees’ propensity to
Page 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 13
1
engage in harassing conduct, Defendant TESLA failed to act to prevent employees from
2
harassing and/or discriminating against Plaintiff.
72.
3
4
to distribute it appropriately and failed to effectively train its employees on racial harassment
5
and discrimination.
6
73.
Defendant TESLA’s violations of FEHA caused Plaintiff to suffer harm.
7
74.
Defendant TESLA’s consistent and continuous failure to take any action in
8
response to complaints of racial harassment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
9
harms.
10
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant TESLA failed to enact an anti-discrimination policy and/or failed
75.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
11
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
12
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
13
incurred in bringing this action.
14
76.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
15
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
16
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
17
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
18
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
19
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
21
(Against all Defendants)
22
23
24
25
26
77.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 76 as though fully set forth herein.
78.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee or contractor of
Defendant TESLA.
79.
As an employee/contractor of Defendant TESLA, Plaintiff was owed a duty of
27
due care by Defendants, and each of them, to ensure that Plaintiff was not exposed to
28
foreseeable harms.
Page 12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 14
1
Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that Plaintiff was
2
being subjected to racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and that, by failing to
3
exercise due care to prevent racially harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct,
4
Plaintiff could and would suffer serious emotional distress.
5
81.
Defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise their duty of due care to
6
prevent their employees, managers, leads, supervisors and/or officers from racially harassing,
7
discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff.
8
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
80.
82.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
9
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, emotional distress and psychological damage.
10
This includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, grief, fear, depression
11
and anxiety.
12
13
14
83.
Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
84.
Defendants’ acts were malicious and oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
15
annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of the rights and
16
safety of Plaintiff and other minority employees of Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and
17
therefore believes, and based thereon alleges, that managing agents ratified the wrongful
18
conduct of the Defendants’ employees, because they were aware of this conduct and failed
19
to take immediate remedial action, and retained the errant employees after Plaintiff’s reports
20
of the oppressive conduct.
21
85.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harms he suffered.
22
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
24
(Against all Defendants)
25
26
27
28
86.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 85 as though fully set forth herein.
87.
Defendant TESLA was aware of the complaints regarding constant racial
abuse, discrimination and harassment in its facilities and toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed
Page 13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 15
1
Defendants that the discrimination and harassment caused them distress, humiliation, and
2
suffering.
3
88.
4
Plaintiff would continue to suffer extreme emotional distress and harm as a result of
5
Defendants’ failure to act.
6
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendant knew that, by failing to take corrective and/or remedial action,
89.
As a direct and consequential result of Defendants’ actions and inactions,
7
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress to their persons including, but not limited to,
8
pain, anxiety, humiliation, anger, frustration, shame, embarrassment and fear.
9
90.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harm they suffered.
10
91.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
11
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
12
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
13
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
14
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
15
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION
17
(Against all Defendants)
18
19
20
92.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 91 as though fully set forth herein.
93.
Upon information and belief, Defendants, by and through its agents and
21
employees, knew, or reasonably should have known through reasonable investigation, of
22
some of its agents and/or employees’ propensity for unlawful racially harassing and
23
discriminatory behavior.
24
94.
Defendants had a duty not to hire or retain these employees/agents given their
25
wrongful, dangerous, and racially offensive propensities, and to provide reasonable
26
supervision of these employees/agents.
27
28
95.
Defendants negligently hired, retained, and/or failed to adequately supervise
these employees/agents in their positions where they were able to commit the wrongful acts
Page 14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 16
1
against Plaintiff as alleged herein. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of
2
these employees/agents despite knowing of their propensities and complaints made against
3
them.
4
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
5
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress and psychological damage. This
6
includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, grief, fear, depression and
7
anxiety.
8
9
10
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
96.
97.
Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
98.
Defendants’ acts were malicious and oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
11
annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of the rights and
12
safety of Plaintiff and other minority employees of Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and
13
therefore believes, and based thereon alleges, that managing agents ratified the wrongful
14
conduct of the Defendants’ employees, because they were aware of this conduct and failed
15
to take immediate remedial action, and retained the errant employees after Plaintiff’s and
16
others’ reports of the oppressive conduct.
17
99.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are responsible for the harms he suffered.
18
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
WRONGFUL TERMINATION
20
(Against Defendant TESLA and DOES 1-50)
21
22
100.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 99 as though fully set forth herein.
23
101.
24
Defendant TESLA.
25
102.
Defendant TESLA punished Plaintiff by terminating his employment.
26
103.
Plaintiff GARCIA engaged in protected activity when he reported instances of
27
28
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee/contractor of
racism and harassment to his supervisors.
104.
Without justification or basis in fact, Defendant TESLA terminated Plaintiff
Page 15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 17
1
GARCIA’s employment.
105.
2
3
discriminatory motives and was contrary to the policies, rules, regulations and laws of the
4
State of California which are in substantial part designed to protect employees from
5
discriminatory, harassing, retaliatory and otherwise harmful or unlawful conduct. These
6
policies are included in the Constitution of the State of California and California Government
7
Codes.
8
9
10
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was based on
106.
Defendants’ violations of these constitutional and statutory provisions caused
Plaintiff to suffer harm as set forth herein.
107.
As a result of Defendant TESLA’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff
11
necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled
12
to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and costs,
13
incurred in bringing this action.
14
108.
Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and/or with the
15
wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and/or with the conscious disregard of the rights and
16
safety of Plaintiff, and/or with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice. Plaintiff
17
is, therefore, entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount to be
18
determined at the time of trial and in accordance with proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.
General damages according to proof and in an amount no less than the
jurisdictional limit of this court;
2.
Special damages in amounts according to proof, together with prejudgment
interest;
25
3.
Exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
26
4.
Civil penalties pursuant to California Civil Code §§52(a), 52(b)(2), and 52.1,
27
28
and California Labor Code §1102.5;
5.
Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code §§52(a), 52(b)(3),
Page 16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 18
1
and 52.1(h), and California Government Code §12965(b);
2
6.
Interest as allowed by law;
3
7.
Costs of suit incurred herein;
4
8.
Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide better training and
5
enforcement of prevention of racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation; development
6
of effective policies and procedures to ensure that effective remedial measures are taken upon
7
reporting of harassment; and
8
9
9.
Such other and further relief that the court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 21, 2023
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
10
11
12
13
14
By:
MIKE ARIAS
SAHAR MALEK
BRENDA WONG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury.
3
4
Dated: April 21, 2023
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
5
6
7
8
9
By:
MIKE ARIAS
SAHAR MALEK
BRENDA WONG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 18
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PDF Page 20
EXHIBIT A
PDF Page 21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, 2022
Brenda Wong
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90045
RE:
Notice to Complainant’s Attorney
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-16812326
Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
Dear Brenda Wong:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 22
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, 2022
RE:
Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-16812326
Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A
copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code
section 12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation
of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the
right to participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both
the employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged
with the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free
mediation program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s
Dispute Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate
whether they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a
civil action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time
period specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. You may
contact DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by
emailing DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter
number indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 23
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 24
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
April 26, 2022
RICARDO GARCIA
C/O Arias Sanguintti Wang & Torrijos, LLP - 6701 Center Drive West, #1400
Los Angeles, CA 90045
RE:
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 202204-16812326
Right to Sue: GARCIA / TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC. et al.
Dear RICARDO GARCIA:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective April 26, 2022
because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
This matter may qualify for DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation
Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code section
12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the
California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to
participate in DFEH’s free mediation program. Under this program both the
employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged with
the violation may request that all parties participate in DFEH’s free mediation
program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute
Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether
they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil
action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period
specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is
complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil
action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled
from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to
pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. Contact
DFEH’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing
DRDOnlinerequests@dfeh.ca.gov and include the DFEH matter number
indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 25
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 26
1
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
2
3
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5
6
7
8
9
DFEH No. 202204-16812326
RICARDO GARCIA
Complainant,
vs.
TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA
MOTORS, INC.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
10
11
12
13
14
IVAN Unknown
45500 Fremont Blvd
Fremont, CA 94538
ManpowerGroup US Inc.
100 Manpower Place
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Respondents
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1. Respondent TESLA, INC. doing business in California as TESLA MOTORS, INC. is an
employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.
Code, § 12900 et seq.).
2.Complainant is naming IVAN Unknown individual as Co-Respondent(s).
Complainant is naming ManpowerGroup US Inc. business as Co-Respondent(s).
3. Complainant RICARDO GARCIA, resides in the City of Los Angeles, State of CA.
4. Complainant alleges that on or about February 10, 2022, respondent took the
23 following adverse actions:
24 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, ancestry, national origin
25
(includes language restrictions), color, other, association with a member of a protected
class.
26
-1Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-16812326
27
Date Filed: April 26, 2022
28
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 27
1
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry,
2 national origin (includes language restrictions), color, other, association with a member of a
protected class and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied hire or
3 promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, asked impermissible non-job-related questions,
denied any employment benefit or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or
4 assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
5 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form
6
7
of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment
complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied
equal pay, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit
or privilege, other, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
8
9 Additional Complaint Details:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-2Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-16812326
27
Date Filed: April 26, 2022
28
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)
PDF Page 28
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Brenda Wong, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
3
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On April 26, 2022, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6
Los Angeles, California
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-3Complaint – DFEH No. 202204-16812326
27
Date Filed: April 26, 2022
28
Form DFEH-ENF 80 RS (Revised 02/22)