Page 1
Lawrence A. Organ (SBN 175503)
Julianne K. Stanford (SBN 290001)
Cimone A. Nunley (SBN 326915)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
332 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA Telephone: (415) 453-Facsimile: (415) 785-Email: larry@civilrightsca.com
julianne@civilrightsca.com
cimone@civilrightsca.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
LORI COLLINS,
v.
TESLA MOTORS, INC.; HIGHLAND
SIENG; MICHAEL SIMON; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) Sexual Harassment (FEHA);
(2) Failure to Accommodate (FEHA);
(3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
(FEHA);
(4) Failure to Prevent Harassment (FEHA);
(5) Acts of Violence (Ralph Act); and
(6) Constructive Termination in Violation of
Public Policy.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 2 INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff Lori Collins began working on Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.’s
manufacturing line in July of 2021. From the beginning of her employment, coworker Highland
“Panda” Sieng subjected Ms. Collins and her female colleagues to an endless barrage of sexual
harassment, including verbal comments and unwelcome physical assaults.
2.
Tesla Production Supervisor Jasmine Saucedo witnessed Sieng’s harassing
conduct, and received numerous complaints from her female subordinates, but took no action to
protect them. She sent a clear message to Sieng and other employees that sexual harassment
would be tolerated at Tesla.
3.
After witnessing Sieng’s harassment for months and management’s failure to
respond to Sieng’s conduct, Ms. Collins’ coworker Michael Simon sexually assaulted Ms.
Collins while trying to force her to drink alcohol at work.
4.
Ms. Collins promptly reported the assault to Tesla’s Human Resources
department and asked for medical leave. During her leave, Tesla continued to pressure Ms.
Collins to return to work. Ms. Collins repeatedly explained that she did not feel safe returning to
work with her harassers. During her leave, Tesla had informed Mr. Sieng that Ms. Collins had
lodged a harassment complaint. Mr. Sieng shared this information with Mr. Simon and Mr.
Simon sent Ms. Collins multiple text messages regarding the complaint. Ms. Collins asked HR
whether they had been fired and requested a shift change to avoid retaliation and further contact
with Mr. Simon and Mr. Sieng. Tesla ignored her requests and continued to keep Ms. Collins on
unpaid leave, while allowing Mr. Sieng to remain at work and Mr. Simon to remain on paid
leave.
5.
After Ms. Collins’ pleas for assistance and accommodation were ignored for
nearly a month, Ms. Collins felt that she had no choice but to resign from her employment with
Tesla.
PARTIES
6.
Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Austin, Texas. Tesla is in the business of manufacturing and selling electronic vehicles and
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 3
conducts some of its manufacturing at its plant in Fremont, California. At all relevant times
herein, Tesla conducted business in Fremont, California. Tesla regularly employs five or more
individuals and regularly receives the services of five or more individuals pursuant to a contract.
Thus, Tesla is an employer within the meaning of California’s Fair Employment and Housing
Act (“FEHA”). At all relevant times herein, Tesla employed Plaintiff in Fremont, California.
7.
Defendant Highland Sieng is and at all relevant times herein was an adult
resident of California. He worked at Tesla’s Fremont plant during Ms. Collins’ tenure there,
from at least July 2021 through February of 2022.
8.
Defendant Michael Simon is and at all relevant times herein was an adult
resident of California. He worked at Tesla’s Fremont plant during Ms. Collins’ tenure there,
from at least July 2021 through February of 2022.
9.
Plaintiff Lori Collins is and at all relevant times herein was an adult resident of
California. She began working at Tesla’s Fremont plant in July of 2021.
10.
In addition to the Defendants named above, Plaintiff sues fictitiously named
Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 474, because their names, capacities, status, or facts showing them to be liable to
Plaintiff are not presently known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged, and such Defendants caused Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show these Defendants’ true names and capacities,
together with appropriate charging language, when such information has been ascertained.
11.
Each Defendant is sued individually and as the agent or employee of every other
Defendant acting within the course and scope of said agency or employment, with the
knowledge or consent of the other co-Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court pursuant to Civil Code Section
and Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a). The amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 4 13.
because during all relevant times Defendant employed Plaintiff in Alameda County.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
14.
Venue is proper in this county pursuant to Government Code Section 12965(a),
On April 17, 2023, Ms. Collins filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights
Department (“CRD”). She received a right-to-sue notice the same day.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15.
Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs by
reference.
16.
Tesla hired Ms. Collins as a Production Associate on its night shift in July of
2021. She began working for Tesla on July 19, 2021, and Production Supervisor Jasmine
Saucedo became Ms. Collins’s supervisor three days later.
17.
From the beginning of Ms. Collins’s employment with Tesla, her coworker Mr.
Sieng subjected her and other female employees to a barrage of highly offensive sexual
comments, including asking Ms. Collins how much she would charge for “some pussy,” asking
Ms. Collins to participate in a threesome, asking if Ms. Collins would show him how she eats,
stating that Ms. Collins must “know how to fuck” because she has two children, stating he knew
how well Ms. Collins or other female workers knew how to “ride dick” based on how they
performed pre-shift stretches, calling Ms. Collins and other women “babe”, or calling Ms.
Collins and other women “beautiful.”
18.
Mr. Sieng also made comments like “Damn, look at that ass,” “Look at that
body,” or “looking good” to the women he worked with. Ms. Collins personally witnessed Mr.
Sieng harassing at least three other female workers. Mr. Sieng even physically assaulted other
female employee as Ms. Collins and other women watched, grabbing one woman’s breasts
while slapping another’s rear.
19.
Mr. Sieng did not try to hide his conduct. He made these comments in front of
Production Supervisor Saucedo. When Ms. Collins and others complained to Production
Supervisor Saucedo and their lead, Johnny (last name unknown), the Tesla supervisors took no
action.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 5
20.
Mr. Sieng’s friend, Mr. Simon, observed Mr. Sieng’s conduct and management’s
indifference to complaints for months. Once Mr. Simon realized that sexual harassment would
not carry any consequences at Tesla, he turned his attention to Ms. Collins.
21.
On January 14, 2022, Ms. Collins was working in a secluded part of the factory
with few other employees nearby. Mr. Simon approached Ms. Collins with two cups of alcohol
and demanded Ms. Collins take one of the drinks.
22.
Ms. Collins refused, but Mr. Simon cornered Ms. Collins against a cart and
pushed his body into hers. Ms. Collins begged Mr. Simon to stop, but her arms were full of
materials and she could not push Mr. Simon away. Mr. Simon continued to push his body into
Ms. Collins, whispering into her ear, “Quit playing and drink this. I took the time to make this
for you, and I’m not taking no for an answer.” Ms. Collins tried to get Mr. Simon to stop by
saying a lead was nearby and security cameras were trained on the area, but Mr. Simon told her
no one was watching and tried to force her to drink.
23.
Shortly after, Mr. Sieng walked by. Instead of helping Ms. Collins, Mr. Sieng
called out, “Babe, you’re cheating on me,” and walked away.
24.
After Mr. Sieng left, Mr. Simon pushed Ms. Collins into a table and kissed her
neck. At that moment, another employee walked past. She immediately rushed to find an older
male employee, who got between Mr. Simon and Ms. Collins and pushed Mr. Simon away.
25.
Ms. Collins immediately reported the assault to Tesla Leads Davis (last name
unknown) and Johnny. When Ms. Collins asked if they would do anything in response, Lead
Davis promised to tell Production Supervisor Saucedo the following Monday and Johnny said,
“Don’t tell me, I’m no snitch!”
26.
Ms. Collins reported the assault to a third lead, Mikey (last name unknown), who
instructed Ms. Collins to go back to work and promised to move her to a different work area
than Mr. Simon at the next scheduled rotation. But after reporting the workplace assault to three
leads, no Tesla workers took steps to protect Ms. Collins, discipline Mr. Simon, or separate the
two in the workplace. After Ms. Collins went home for the weekend, no one from Tesla
contacted her.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 6
27.
As soon as Ms. Collins arrived to work the following Monday, January 17, she
complained to Human Resources and requested leave from work. Instead, HR instructed Ms.
Collins to return to work.
28.
Ms. Collins was terrified for her safety. Mr. Simon had already assaulted her
once, and shortly before the assault, a Tesla employee murdered another worker in the factory’s
parking lot. Ms. Collins was afraid that Mr. Simon would seek similar retaliation. Over the
following weeks, Ms. Collins repeatedly asked Tesla Human Resources employee Daniel
Uchiyama about Mr. Sieng and Mr. Simon’s employment status, and expressed a fear of
retaliation. In response, Mr. Uchiyama only shared that Mr. Simon was on paid leave while
Tesla’s investigation was pending. Ms. Collins, meanwhile, was on unpaid leave. During this
leave, Mr. Simon learned about Ms. Collins’s complaints and called Ms. Collins twice in
addition to sending Ms. Collins two text messages. Meanwhile, Mr. Sieng told Ms. Collins he
laughed in HR’s faces when they informed him of her complaints, and stated he would not get
in trouble because he was friends with management. Mr. Sieng threatened that “something will
be done” when he learned which employee “snitched” on him, which Ms. Collins understood to
be a threat of retaliation.
29.
Instead of granting Ms. Collins leave or taking steps to protect her safety, Tesla
informed Ms. Collins that she had no sick leave available and was not eligible for leave under
the Family Medical Leave Act. Tesla continued to demand that Ms. Collins return to work. Ms.
Collins repeatedly expressed her discomfort at Mr. Sieng and Mr. Simon’s threats, and asked
Tesla to take steps to protect her safety. Tesla only offered a shift change—which would come
with a pay cut. Even after Ms. Collins was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and
informed Tesla of the same, Tesla failed to engage in discussions regarding accommodations
that might allow Ms. Collins to return to work.
30.
After three-plus weeks of silence from Tesla, Ms. Collins felt she had no choice
but to resign on February 8, 2022. In her resignation letter, Ms. Collins expressed that she was
resigning because Tesla had failed to protect her from harassment and failed to take steps to
accommodate her or protect her safety following the assault. Mr. Uchiyama ignored Ms.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 7
Collins’s complaints and simply sent her exit paperwork.
31.
Since her resignation from Tesla, Ms. Collins suffers from post-traumatic stress
disorder, including symptoms of anxiety, intrusive thoughts, panic attacks, fluctuating moods,
and problems with concentration as a result of the assault and Tesla’s continual inaction in the
face of constant sexual harassment. Ms. Collins was out of work for two months as a result of
her forced resignation, had to accept a lower-paying position. Her new employment also has
less favorable hours that do not allow her to take her children to and from school. She struggles
to provide for her family and continues to suffer ongoing emotional distress and economic loss
as a result of Tesla’s actions.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT (FEHA)
Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1)
(Against All Defendants)
32.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
33.
Section 12940(j)(1) of the California Government Code renders it unlawful for
an employer to create or permit a work environment that is hostile, intimidating, offensive,
oppressive, or abusive to employees because of their sex.
34.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
35.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a woman.
36.
Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, and
abusive work environment because of her sex. Mr. Sieng harassed Plaintiff because of her sex,
by way of his constant comments about her body, remarks about the bodies of other female
employees, and graphic descriptions of sexual acts. The harassment was severe or pervasive,
because it occurred daily, creating a workplace that was intolerably harassing. Ms. Collins was
offended and distressed by his comments, as were her female colleagues.
37.
Mr. Simon likewise harassed Plaintiff because of her sex, as evidenced by the
fact that he grabbed her body and kissed her neck. Plaintiff was likewise offended by this
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 8
conduct.
38.
Defendant Tesla is liable for Mr. Simon and Mr. Sieng’s conduct. Ms. Collins
and other employees complained repeatedly about Mr. Sieng’s comments to Production
Supervisor Saucedo, but Defendant took no action. Additionally, Mr. Sieng harassed his female
colleagues in front of Production Supervisor Saucedo. Despite being placed on ample notice,
Defendant took no action to end the harassment, thereby ratifying the conduct. Likewise, after
Plaintiff complained to three leads, Defendant failed to take any action in response to Mr.
Simon’s assault, thereby ratifying the conduct.
39.
Defendants Simon and Sieng are personally liable for their own harassing acts.
40.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ harassing conduct was a substantial factor
in causing her harm. She suffers mentally and emotionally from the trauma of being harassed
and assaulted because of her sex. Plaintiff has also suffered economic loss as a result of the
harassment.
41.
The above discriminatory conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of
the state of California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but
not limited to, economic and non-economic damages.
42.
As a result of the above harassing conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to
prosecute this action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
43.
Defendants Sieng and Simon and Defendant Tesla and/or its managing agents
engaged in the above discriminatory conduct maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in
conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is
thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Accommodate (FEHA)
Gov. Code § 12940(m)
(Against Defendant Tesla)
44.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 9
45.
Government Code Section 12940(m) requires employers to provide reasonable
accommodations for their employees’ known disabilities.
46.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
47.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is disabled
suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant was aware of this disability via reports
and doctors’ notes from Plaintiff.
48.
Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of her position with
reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff could have also performed other available positions with
and without reasonable accommodations.
49.
Defendant refused to engage in a good-faith discussion with Plaintiff about
reasonable accommodations. Instead, Defendant offered Plaintiff only the option of returning to
work with her harassers or returning to work on a different shift with reduced pay. Faced with
these options, Plaintiff had no choice but to resign from her position.
50.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ failure to provide reasonable
accommodations was a substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally,
emotionally, and financially as a result of Defendant’s conduct and her forced resignation.
51.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
to, economic and non-economic damages.
52.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
53.
Defendants and their managing agents engaged in the above conduct
maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
Gov. Code § 12940(n)
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 10
(Against Defendant Tesla)
54.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
55.
Government Code Section 12940(n) requires employers to engage in a timely,
good-faith interactive process to accommodate disabled employees.
56.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
57.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is disabled
and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant was aware of this disability via
reports and doctors’ notes from Plaintiff.
58.
Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of her position with
accommodations. Plaintiff could have also performed other available positions with and without
reasonable accommodations.
59.
Defendant failed to timely participate in the interactive process, instead
informing Plaintiff that her only options were to return to work with her harassers or a switch to
a different shift with reduced pay. Faced with these options, Plaintiff had no choice but to resign
from her position.
60.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ failure to engage in the interactive process
was a substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially
from Defendant’s conduct and her forced resignation.
61.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
to, economic and non-economic damages.
62.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
63.
Defendants and their managing agents engaged in the above conduct
maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 11
Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT
Gov. Code § 12940(k)
(Against Defendant Tesla)
64.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
65.
Government Code Section 12940(k) requires employers take all reasonable steps
to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
66.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
67.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a woman.
68.
Defendant was unquestionably aware of the harassing conduct: in addition to
occurring in front of managers, both Ms. Collins and other women reported the conduct to
Defendant’s management.
69.
Instead of taking prompt, effective action reasonably calculated to end the
harassment against Plaintiff and other women, Defendant ignored the repeated complaints and
instead forced Plaintiff and other women to endure the increasingly worse harassment.
70.
Plaintiff was harmed and the failure to remediate the harassing conduct was a
substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially
because of the harassment, the assault, and the forced resignation.
71.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
to, economic and non-economic damages.
72.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
73.
Defendant and its managing agents engaged in the above conduct maliciously,
fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 12
other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTS OF VIOLENCE (RALPH ACT)
Cal. Civ. Code § 51.(Against Defendant Tesla and Defendant Simon)
74.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
75.
Section 51.7 of the California Civil Code makes it unlawful to commit an act of
violence against an individual on the basis of their membership in a protected class.
76.
Mr. Simon committed a violent act against Plaintiff by forcibly grabbing her,
pressing his body against hers, and kissing her. Given that it was a sexual assault, Plaintiff’s sex
was a substantial motivating reason for this conduct.
77.
Defendant Tesla is liable for this conduct. Defendant failed to take action against
prior sexually harassing conduct, thereby implicitly ratifying the conduct. Moreover, after the
assault, when Plaintiff complained to three separate leads and thereafter to Human Resources,
Defendant failed to take action. Defendant thereby implicitly ratified the assault.
78.
Plaintiff was harmed and the violent conduct was a substantial factor in causing
her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially from the assault and her subsequent
forced resignation.
79.
The above conduct violates the laws and public policy of the state of California.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited to,
economic and non-economic damages.
80.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
81.
Defendant Simon and Defendant Tesla and/or its managing agents engaged in
the above conduct maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the
rights and safety of Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
punitive damages.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(Against Defendant Tesla)
82.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
83.
It is a violation of the public policy of the State of California, including but not
limited to the policies expressed in FEHA, to force a qualified female employee to quit her
position.
84.
During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to an intolerably
hostile work environment based on first on her gender, where she was forced to work alongside
colleagues who made noxious, sexually harassing comments on a daily basis; and then when
based on her disability, when she was faced with the choice of returning to work with her
harassers in an environment that would trigger the symptoms of her post-traumatic stress
disorder, or returning to work on a different shift with reduced pay. When Plaintiff complained,
Defendant refused to engage in a good-faith interactive process.
85.
When faced with this choice, Plaintiff had no alternative but to quit her job. A
reasonable woman with post-traumatic stress disorder would have acted as Plaintiff did.
86.
The above conduct violates FEHA and the public policy of the state of
California, and entitles Plaintiff to all categories of damages, including, but not limited to,
economic and non-economic damages.
87.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
88.
Defendant and its managing agents engaged in the above conduct maliciously,
fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPage 14
a. General damages according to proof, however, no less than the jurisdictional limit of
this court;
b. Special damages in amounts according to proof, together with prejudgment interest;
c. Exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
d. Civil penalties of $25,000 pursuant to Civil Code Section 52(b)(2)
e. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code Section
12965(c)(6), Civil Code Section 52(b)(3), and any other applicable statute;
f. Interest as provided by law;
g. Injunctive relief to require Defendant to develop and implement policies and
procedures to ensure that effective remedial measures are taken when discrimination
is reported; and
h.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and appropriate.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
Dated: April 19,
_________________________________
Cimone A. Nunley, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
Dated: April 19,
_________________________________
Cimone A. Nunley, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lawrence A. Organ (SBN 175503)
Julianne K. Stanford (SBN 290001)
Cimone A. Nunley (SBN 326915)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
332 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Telephone: (415) 453-4740
Facsimile: (415) 785-7352
Email: larry@civilrightsca.com
julianne@civilrightsca.com
cimone@civilrightsca.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
10
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
11
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
Case No.:
LORI COLLINS,
v.
TESLA MOTORS, INC.; HIGHLAND
SIENG; MICHAEL SIMON; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive,
20
21
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(1) Sexual Harassment (FEHA);
(2) Failure to Accommodate (FEHA);
(3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
(FEHA);
(4) Failure to Prevent Harassment (FEHA);
(5) Acts of Violence (Ralph Act); and
(6) Constructive Termination in Violation of
Public Policy.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 3
INTRODUCTION
1
1.
2
Plaintiff Lori Collins began working on Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.’s
3
manufacturing line in July of 2021. From the beginning of her employment, coworker Highland
4
“Panda” Sieng subjected Ms. Collins and her female colleagues to an endless barrage of sexual
5
harassment, including verbal comments and unwelcome physical assaults.
2.
6
Tesla Production Supervisor Jasmine Saucedo witnessed Sieng’s harassing
7
conduct, and received numerous complaints from her female subordinates, but took no action to
8
protect them. She sent a clear message to Sieng and other employees that sexual harassment
9
would be tolerated at Tesla.
3.
10
After witnessing Sieng’s harassment for months and management’s failure to
11
respond to Sieng’s conduct, Ms. Collins’ coworker Michael Simon sexually assaulted Ms.
12
Collins while trying to force her to drink alcohol at work.
4.
13
Ms. Collins promptly reported the assault to Tesla’s Human Resources
14
department and asked for medical leave. During her leave, Tesla continued to pressure Ms.
15
Collins to return to work. Ms. Collins repeatedly explained that she did not feel safe returning to
16
work with her harassers. During her leave, Tesla had informed Mr. Sieng that Ms. Collins had
17
lodged a harassment complaint. Mr. Sieng shared this information with Mr. Simon and Mr.
18
Simon sent Ms. Collins multiple text messages regarding the complaint. Ms. Collins asked HR
19
whether they had been fired and requested a shift change to avoid retaliation and further contact
20
with Mr. Simon and Mr. Sieng. Tesla ignored her requests and continued to keep Ms. Collins on
21
unpaid leave, while allowing Mr. Sieng to remain at work and Mr. Simon to remain on paid
22
leave.
5.
23
After Ms. Collins’ pleas for assistance and accommodation were ignored for
24
nearly a month, Ms. Collins felt that she had no choice but to resign from her employment with
25
Tesla.
PARTIES
26
27
28
6.
Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Austin, Texas. Tesla is in the business of manufacturing and selling electronic vehicles and
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 4
1
conducts some of its manufacturing at its plant in Fremont, California. At all relevant times
2
herein, Tesla conducted business in Fremont, California. Tesla regularly employs five or more
3
individuals and regularly receives the services of five or more individuals pursuant to a contract.
4
Thus, Tesla is an employer within the meaning of California’s Fair Employment and Housing
5
Act (“FEHA”). At all relevant times herein, Tesla employed Plaintiff in Fremont, California.
6
7.
Defendant Highland Sieng is and at all relevant times herein was an adult
7
resident of California. He worked at Tesla’s Fremont plant during Ms. Collins’ tenure there,
8
from at least July 2021 through February of 2022.
9
8.
Defendant Michael Simon is and at all relevant times herein was an adult
10
resident of California. He worked at Tesla’s Fremont plant during Ms. Collins’ tenure there,
11
from at least July 2021 through February of 2022.
12
13
14
9.
Plaintiff Lori Collins is and at all relevant times herein was an adult resident of
California. She began working at Tesla’s Fremont plant in July of 2021.
10.
In addition to the Defendants named above, Plaintiff sues fictitiously named
15
Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
16
Section 474, because their names, capacities, status, or facts showing them to be liable to
17
Plaintiff are not presently known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
18
that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the
19
occurrences herein alleged, and such Defendants caused Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged.
20
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show these Defendants’ true names and capacities,
21
together with appropriate charging language, when such information has been ascertained.
22
11.
Each Defendant is sued individually and as the agent or employee of every other
23
Defendant acting within the course and scope of said agency or employment, with the
24
knowledge or consent of the other co-Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25
26
12.
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court pursuant to Civil Code Section 52
27
and Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a). The amount in controversy exceeds the
28
jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 5
13.
1
2
because during all relevant times Defendant employed Plaintiff in Alameda County.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
3
14.
4
5
Venue is proper in this county pursuant to Government Code Section 12965(a),
On April 17, 2023, Ms. Collins filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights
Department (“CRD”). She received a right-to-sue notice the same day.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6
15.
7
8
Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs by
reference.
16.
9
Tesla hired Ms. Collins as a Production Associate on its night shift in July of
10
2021. She began working for Tesla on July 19, 2021, and Production Supervisor Jasmine
11
Saucedo became Ms. Collins’s supervisor three days later.
17.
12
From the beginning of Ms. Collins’s employment with Tesla, her coworker Mr.
13
Sieng subjected her and other female employees to a barrage of highly offensive sexual
14
comments, including asking Ms. Collins how much she would charge for “some pussy,” asking
15
Ms. Collins to participate in a threesome, asking if Ms. Collins would show him how she eats,
16
stating that Ms. Collins must “know how to fuck” because she has two children, stating he knew
17
how well Ms. Collins or other female workers knew how to “ride dick” based on how they
18
performed pre-shift stretches, calling Ms. Collins and other women “babe”, or calling Ms.
19
Collins and other women “beautiful.”
18.
20
Mr. Sieng also made comments like “Damn, look at that ass,” “Look at that
21
body,” or “looking good” to the women he worked with. Ms. Collins personally witnessed Mr.
22
Sieng harassing at least three other female workers. Mr. Sieng even physically assaulted other
23
female employee as Ms. Collins and other women watched, grabbing one woman’s breasts
24
while slapping another’s rear.
19.
25
Mr. Sieng did not try to hide his conduct. He made these comments in front of
26
Production Supervisor Saucedo. When Ms. Collins and others complained to Production
27
Supervisor Saucedo and their lead, Johnny (last name unknown), the Tesla supervisors took no
28
action.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 6
1
20.
Mr. Sieng’s friend, Mr. Simon, observed Mr. Sieng’s conduct and management’s
2
indifference to complaints for months. Once Mr. Simon realized that sexual harassment would
3
not carry any consequences at Tesla, he turned his attention to Ms. Collins.
4
21.
On January 14, 2022, Ms. Collins was working in a secluded part of the factory
5
with few other employees nearby. Mr. Simon approached Ms. Collins with two cups of alcohol
6
and demanded Ms. Collins take one of the drinks.
7
22.
Ms. Collins refused, but Mr. Simon cornered Ms. Collins against a cart and
8
pushed his body into hers. Ms. Collins begged Mr. Simon to stop, but her arms were full of
9
materials and she could not push Mr. Simon away. Mr. Simon continued to push his body into
10
Ms. Collins, whispering into her ear, “Quit playing and drink this. I took the time to make this
11
for you, and I’m not taking no for an answer.” Ms. Collins tried to get Mr. Simon to stop by
12
saying a lead was nearby and security cameras were trained on the area, but Mr. Simon told her
13
no one was watching and tried to force her to drink.
14
15
16
23.
Shortly after, Mr. Sieng walked by. Instead of helping Ms. Collins, Mr. Sieng
called out, “Babe, you’re cheating on me,” and walked away.
24.
After Mr. Sieng left, Mr. Simon pushed Ms. Collins into a table and kissed her
17
neck. At that moment, another employee walked past. She immediately rushed to find an older
18
male employee, who got between Mr. Simon and Ms. Collins and pushed Mr. Simon away.
19
25.
Ms. Collins immediately reported the assault to Tesla Leads Davis (last name
20
unknown) and Johnny. When Ms. Collins asked if they would do anything in response, Lead
21
Davis promised to tell Production Supervisor Saucedo the following Monday and Johnny said,
22
“Don’t tell me, I’m no snitch!”
23
26.
Ms. Collins reported the assault to a third lead, Mikey (last name unknown), who
24
instructed Ms. Collins to go back to work and promised to move her to a different work area
25
than Mr. Simon at the next scheduled rotation. But after reporting the workplace assault to three
26
leads, no Tesla workers took steps to protect Ms. Collins, discipline Mr. Simon, or separate the
27
two in the workplace. After Ms. Collins went home for the weekend, no one from Tesla
28
contacted her.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 7
1
27.
As soon as Ms. Collins arrived to work the following Monday, January 17, she
2
complained to Human Resources and requested leave from work. Instead, HR instructed Ms.
3
Collins to return to work.
4
28.
Ms. Collins was terrified for her safety. Mr. Simon had already assaulted her
5
once, and shortly before the assault, a Tesla employee murdered another worker in the factory’s
6
parking lot. Ms. Collins was afraid that Mr. Simon would seek similar retaliation. Over the
7
following weeks, Ms. Collins repeatedly asked Tesla Human Resources employee Daniel
8
Uchiyama about Mr. Sieng and Mr. Simon’s employment status, and expressed a fear of
9
retaliation. In response, Mr. Uchiyama only shared that Mr. Simon was on paid leave while
10
Tesla’s investigation was pending. Ms. Collins, meanwhile, was on unpaid leave. During this
11
leave, Mr. Simon learned about Ms. Collins’s complaints and called Ms. Collins twice in
12
addition to sending Ms. Collins two text messages. Meanwhile, Mr. Sieng told Ms. Collins he
13
laughed in HR’s faces when they informed him of her complaints, and stated he would not get
14
in trouble because he was friends with management. Mr. Sieng threatened that “something will
15
be done” when he learned which employee “snitched” on him, which Ms. Collins understood to
16
be a threat of retaliation.
17
29.
Instead of granting Ms. Collins leave or taking steps to protect her safety, Tesla
18
informed Ms. Collins that she had no sick leave available and was not eligible for leave under
19
the Family Medical Leave Act. Tesla continued to demand that Ms. Collins return to work. Ms.
20
Collins repeatedly expressed her discomfort at Mr. Sieng and Mr. Simon’s threats, and asked
21
Tesla to take steps to protect her safety. Tesla only offered a shift change—which would come
22
with a pay cut. Even after Ms. Collins was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and
23
informed Tesla of the same, Tesla failed to engage in discussions regarding accommodations
24
that might allow Ms. Collins to return to work.
25
30.
After three-plus weeks of silence from Tesla, Ms. Collins felt she had no choice
26
but to resign on February 8, 2022. In her resignation letter, Ms. Collins expressed that she was
27
resigning because Tesla had failed to protect her from harassment and failed to take steps to
28
accommodate her or protect her safety following the assault. Mr. Uchiyama ignored Ms.
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 8
1
2
Collins’s complaints and simply sent her exit paperwork.
31.
Since her resignation from Tesla, Ms. Collins suffers from post-traumatic stress
3
disorder, including symptoms of anxiety, intrusive thoughts, panic attacks, fluctuating moods,
4
and problems with concentration as a result of the assault and Tesla’s continual inaction in the
5
face of constant sexual harassment. Ms. Collins was out of work for two months as a result of
6
her forced resignation, had to accept a lower-paying position. Her new employment also has
7
less favorable hours that do not allow her to take her children to and from school. She struggles
8
to provide for her family and continues to suffer ongoing emotional distress and economic loss
9
as a result of Tesla’s actions.
10
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT (FEHA)
Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1)
(Against All Defendants)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
33.
Section 12940(j)(1) of the California Government Code renders it unlawful for
an employer to create or permit a work environment that is hostile, intimidating, offensive,
oppressive, or abusive to employees because of their sex.
34.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
35.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a woman.
36.
Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, and
abusive work environment because of her sex. Mr. Sieng harassed Plaintiff because of her sex,
by way of his constant comments about her body, remarks about the bodies of other female
employees, and graphic descriptions of sexual acts. The harassment was severe or pervasive,
because it occurred daily, creating a workplace that was intolerably harassing. Ms. Collins was
offended and distressed by his comments, as were her female colleagues.
37.
Mr. Simon likewise harassed Plaintiff because of her sex, as evidenced by the
fact that he grabbed her body and kissed her neck. Plaintiff was likewise offended by this
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 9
1
2
conduct.
38.
Defendant Tesla is liable for Mr. Simon and Mr. Sieng’s conduct. Ms. Collins
3
and other employees complained repeatedly about Mr. Sieng’s comments to Production
4
Supervisor Saucedo, but Defendant took no action. Additionally, Mr. Sieng harassed his female
5
colleagues in front of Production Supervisor Saucedo. Despite being placed on ample notice,
6
Defendant took no action to end the harassment, thereby ratifying the conduct. Likewise, after
7
Plaintiff complained to three leads, Defendant failed to take any action in response to Mr.
8
Simon’s assault, thereby ratifying the conduct.
9
39.
Defendants Simon and Sieng are personally liable for their own harassing acts.
10
40.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ harassing conduct was a substantial factor
11
in causing her harm. She suffers mentally and emotionally from the trauma of being harassed
12
and assaulted because of her sex. Plaintiff has also suffered economic loss as a result of the
13
harassment.
14
41.
The above discriminatory conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of
15
the state of California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but
16
not limited to, economic and non-economic damages.
17
42.
As a result of the above harassing conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to
18
prosecute this action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
19
expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
20
43.
Defendants Sieng and Simon and Defendant Tesla and/or its managing agents
21
engaged in the above discriminatory conduct maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in
22
conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is
23
thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Accommodate (FEHA)
Gov. Code § 12940(m)
(Against Defendant Tesla)
24
25
26
27
28
44.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
45.
Government Code Section 12940(m) requires employers to provide reasonable
accommodations for their employees’ known disabilities.
46.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
47.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is disabled
6
suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant was aware of this disability via reports
7
and doctors’ notes from Plaintiff.
8
9
10
11
48.
Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of her position with
reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff could have also performed other available positions with
and without reasonable accommodations.
49.
Defendant refused to engage in a good-faith discussion with Plaintiff about
12
reasonable accommodations. Instead, Defendant offered Plaintiff only the option of returning to
13
work with her harassers or returning to work on a different shift with reduced pay. Faced with
14
these options, Plaintiff had no choice but to resign from her position.
15
50.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ failure to provide reasonable
16
accommodations was a substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally,
17
emotionally, and financially as a result of Defendant’s conduct and her forced resignation.
18
51.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
19
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
20
to, economic and non-economic damages.
21
52.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
22
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
23
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
24
53.
Defendants and their managing agents engaged in the above conduct
25
maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
26
Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
27
28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
Gov. Code § 12940(n)
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Against Defendant Tesla)
54.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
55.
Government Code Section 12940(n) requires employers to engage in a timely,
good-faith interactive process to accommodate disabled employees.
56.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
57.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is disabled
and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant was aware of this disability via
reports and doctors’ notes from Plaintiff.
58.
Plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of her position with
accommodations. Plaintiff could have also performed other available positions with and without
reasonable accommodations.
59.
Defendant failed to timely participate in the interactive process, instead
informing Plaintiff that her only options were to return to work with her harassers or a switch to
a different shift with reduced pay. Faced with these options, Plaintiff had no choice but to resign
from her position.
60.
Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants’ failure to engage in the interactive process
was a substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially
from Defendant’s conduct and her forced resignation.
61.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
to, economic and non-economic damages.
62.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
63.
Defendants and their managing agents engaged in the above conduct
maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 12
1
Plaintiff and other disabled workers. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT
Gov. Code § 12940(k)
(Against Defendant Tesla)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
64.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
65.
Government Code Section 12940(k) requires employers take all reasonable steps
to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
66.
Defendant regularly employs five or more persons; therefore, it is a covered
employer within the meaning of FEHA.
11
67.
At all relevant times herein, Defendant employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a woman.
12
68.
Defendant was unquestionably aware of the harassing conduct: in addition to
13
occurring in front of managers, both Ms. Collins and other women reported the conduct to
14
Defendant’s management.
15
69.
Instead of taking prompt, effective action reasonably calculated to end the
16
harassment against Plaintiff and other women, Defendant ignored the repeated complaints and
17
instead forced Plaintiff and other women to endure the increasingly worse harassment.
18
70.
Plaintiff was harmed and the failure to remediate the harassing conduct was a
19
substantial factor in causing her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially
20
because of the harassment, the assault, and the forced resignation.
21
71.
The above conduct violates FEHA, as well as the public policy of the state of
22
California. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited
23
to, economic and non-economic damages.
24
72.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
25
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
26
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
27
28
73.
Defendant and its managing agents engaged in the above conduct maliciously,
fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 13
1
other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTS OF VIOLENCE (RALPH ACT)
Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7
(Against Defendant Tesla and Defendant Simon)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
74.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
75.
Section 51.7 of the California Civil Code makes it unlawful to commit an act of
violence against an individual on the basis of their membership in a protected class.
76.
Mr. Simon committed a violent act against Plaintiff by forcibly grabbing her,
10
pressing his body against hers, and kissing her. Given that it was a sexual assault, Plaintiff’s sex
11
was a substantial motivating reason for this conduct.
12
77.
Defendant Tesla is liable for this conduct. Defendant failed to take action against
13
prior sexually harassing conduct, thereby implicitly ratifying the conduct. Moreover, after the
14
assault, when Plaintiff complained to three separate leads and thereafter to Human Resources,
15
Defendant failed to take action. Defendant thereby implicitly ratified the assault.
16
78.
Plaintiff was harmed and the violent conduct was a substantial factor in causing
17
her harm. She suffers mentally, emotionally, and financially from the assault and her subsequent
18
forced resignation.
19
79.
The above conduct violates the laws and public policy of the state of California.
20
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to all categories of damages, including, but not limited to,
21
economic and non-economic damages.
22
80.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
23
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
24
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
25
81.
Defendant Simon and Defendant Tesla and/or its managing agents engaged in
26
the above conduct maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the
27
rights and safety of Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
28
punitive damages.
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 14
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
(Against Defendant Tesla)
1
2
3
4
5
82.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
83.
It is a violation of the public policy of the State of California, including but not
6
limited to the policies expressed in FEHA, to force a qualified female employee to quit her
7
position.
8
9
84.
During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to an intolerably
hostile work environment based on first on her gender, where she was forced to work alongside
10
colleagues who made noxious, sexually harassing comments on a daily basis; and then when
11
based on her disability, when she was faced with the choice of returning to work with her
12
harassers in an environment that would trigger the symptoms of her post-traumatic stress
13
disorder, or returning to work on a different shift with reduced pay. When Plaintiff complained,
14
Defendant refused to engage in a good-faith interactive process.
15
16
17
85.
When faced with this choice, Plaintiff had no alternative but to quit her job. A
reasonable woman with post-traumatic stress disorder would have acted as Plaintiff did.
86.
The above conduct violates FEHA and the public policy of the state of
18
California, and entitles Plaintiff to all categories of damages, including, but not limited to,
19
economic and non-economic damages.
20
87.
As a result of the above conduct, Plaintiff has retained attorneys to prosecute this
21
action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses,
22
including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing this action.
23
88.
Defendant and its managing agents engaged in the above conduct maliciously,
24
fraudulently, and oppressively, or in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
25
other similarly situated workers. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages.
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PDF Page 15
1
a. General damages according to proof, however, no less than the jurisdictional limit of
this court;
2
3
b. Special damages in amounts according to proof, together with prejudgment interest;
4
c. Exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
5
d. Civil penalties of $25,000 pursuant to Civil Code Section 52(b)(2)
6
e. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code Section
12965(c)(6), Civil Code Section 52(b)(3), and any other applicable statute;
7
8
f. Interest as provided by law;
9
g. Injunctive relief to require Defendant to develop and implement policies and
10
procedures to ensure that effective remedial measures are taken when discrimination
11
is reported; and
12
h.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and appropriate.
13
14
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
Dated: April 19, 2023
15
16
_________________________________
Cimone A. Nunley, Esq.
17
Attorney for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
18
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
22
23
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
Dated: April 19, 2023
24
25
_________________________________
Cimone A. Nunley, Esq.
26
Attorney for Plaintiff
LORI COLLINS
27
28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL