Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`LAWRENCE A. ORGAN (SBN 175503)
`NAVRUZ AVLONI (SBN 279556)
`CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP
`332 San Anselmo Avenue
`San Anselmo, California 94960
`Tel.: (415) 453-4740
`Fax.: (415) 785-7352
`larry@civilrightsca.com
`navruz@civilrightsca.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`DEMETRIC DI-AZ, OWEN DIAZ AND LAMAR PATTERSON
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`DEMETRIC DI-AZ, OWEN DIAZ and
`)
`LAMAR PATTERSON,
`)
`
`)
` Plaintiffs,
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`TESLA, INC. DBA TESLA MOTORS, INC.;
`)
`CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC.; WEST
`)
`)
`VALLEY STAFFING GROUP;
`)
`CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES, INC.;
`)
`NEXTSOURCE, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
`)
`inclusive,
`)
`)
` Defendants.
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`_____________________________________
`)
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-06748-WHO
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1. Racial Discrimination, Harassment,
`Retaliation, Failure to Prevent, Constructive
`and Wrongful Termination in Violation of 42
`U.S.C. § 1981;
`2. Racial Discrimination in Violation of the
`Unruh Civil Rights Act;
`3. Retaliation - Unruh Civil Rights Act;
`4. Threats of Violence in Violation of the Ralph
`Civil Rights Act;
`5. Threats of Violence - Bane Act;
`Interference with Constitutional Rights in
`6.
`Violation of the Bane Act;
`7. Whistleblower Retaliation;
`8. Racial Harassment under FEHA;
`9. Racial Discrimination under FEHA;
`10. Retaliation under FEHA;
`11. Failure to Prevent under FEHA;
`12. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
`13. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
`14. Negligent Hiring Retention and Supervision;
`15. Wrongful Termination; and
`16. Constructive Discharge.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Even amongst the giants of California’s Silicon Valley, Tesla, Inc. stands out as
`1.
`an innovative and groundbreaking company that is at the forefront of the electric vehicle
`revolution. As a result, Owen Diaz, his son Demetric Di-az, and Lamar Patterson were thrilled
`when they landed work at Tesla’s production factory, located in Fremont, California.
`Instead of a modern workplace, however, Plaintiffs encountered a scene straight
`2.
`from the Jim Crow era. Although the men worked in different areas of the factory, all three were
`targets of racially motivated abuse, including the frequent use of racial slurs. Plaintiffs
`complained to their supervisors, but Tesla, Inc., took no action. Plaintiffs quickly learned that
`Tesla’s progressive image was a façade papering over its regressive, demeaning treatment of
`African-American employees.
`
`PARTIES
`Defendant Tesla, Inc., d.b.a. Tesla Motors, Inc., (hereinafter “Tesla”) is a
`3.
`publicly-traded Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located in Palo Alto,
`California. Tesla designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles. One of Tesla’s vehicle
`manufacturing facilities, also known as the “Tesla Factory,” is located at 45500 Fremont
`Boulevard in Fremont, California. The harassing conduct at issue in this case took place at the
`Tesla Factory in Fremont. Due to Tesla’s ownership of the facility, its day-to-day managerial
`role in the facility, its right to hire, fire and discipline the employees, and its control of all terms
`and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, Tesla is Plaintiffs’ joint employer, which provides
`employment pursuant to contract.
`Defendant Citistaff Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter “Citistaff”) is a California
`4.
`corporation whose principal place of business is located in Orange, California. Citistaff is a
`staffing company that provides trained employees to businesses for short-and long-term
`assignments, and therefore provides employment pursuant to contract. When Citistaff’s
`employees are sent to work at their client’s sites, they receive paychecks from Citistaff. Citistaff
`retains control over hiring and firing decisions and also selects the locations where its employees
`work. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that in addition to being joint
`
`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
`
`
`2
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`employers, Defendants Tesla and Citistaff are alter egos and/or integrated enterprises such that
`the actions of one entity can be and are attributable to the other entity.
`Defendant West Valley Staffing Company (hereinafter “West Valley”) is a
`5.
`staffing corporation with corporate offices in Sunnyvale, California. West Valley provides
`trained employees for short and long-term assignments to other businesses, and therefore
`provides employment pursuant to contract. When West Valley employees are sent to work at
`other business’ sites, they receive paychecks from West Valley, West Valley retains control over
`hiring and firing decisions, and also selects the locations at which its employees work. Plaintiffs
`are informed and believe and on that basis allege that in addition to being joint employers,
`Defendants Tesla and West Valley are alter egos and/or integrated enterprises such that the
`actions of one entity can be and are attributable to the other entity.
`Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services Inc. (hereinafter “Chartwell”), doing
`6.
`business as Chartwell Staffing Solutions, is a staffing corporation with corporate offices in San
`Jose, California. Chartwell provides employees for short and long-term assignments to
`businesses in the United States, and therefore provides employment pursuant to contract.
`Plaintiff Lamar Patterson applied for a Tesla position through Chartwell. He received all relevant
`training and orientation directly through Tesla, clocked in and out using Tesla’s timekeeping
`system, and Tesla maintained power over hiring and firing decisions. Plaintiff Lamar Patterson
`selected to work for Tesla, rather than being assigned a location by Chartwell. Plaintiffs are
`informed and believe and on that basis allege that in addition to being joint employers,
`Defendants Tesla and Chartwell are alter egos and/or integrated enterprises such that the actions
`of one entity can be and are attributable to the other entity.
`Defendant nextSource, Inc. (hereinafter “nextSource”) is a Delaware corporation
`7.
`with its principal place of business located in New York City, New York. nextSource provides
`contract employees from staffing corporations, such as Defendant Citistaff, to contracting
`companies, such as Defendant Tesla. nextSource accordingly provides employees pursuant to
`contract. In addition, nextSource provides human resources functions to the contracting
`businesses and staffing agencies, has power to make hiring and firing decisions, and to select the
`
`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
`
`
`3
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`employees who work at a particular contracting company. Plaintiffs are informed and believe,
`and on that basis allege, that in addition to being joint employers, Defendants nextSource,
`Citistaff, and Tesla are alter egos and/or integrated enterprises such that the actions of one entity
`can be and are attributable to the other entity.
`Plaintiff Demetric Di-az (hereinafter “Demetric”) was employed as a Production
`8.
`Associate jointly by defendants West Valley and Tesla from approximately August of 2015
`through October of 2015. Demetric was placed by West Valley at the Tesla Factory in Fremont,
`California. Demetric is, and at all relevant times herein was, an adult African-American resident
`of California.
`Plaintiff Owen Diaz (hereinafter “Owen”) was employed as an Elevator Operator
`9.
`jointly by defendants Citistaff, nextSource, and Tesla between approximately June 2015 and
`May of 2016. Owen was placed by Citistaff and nextSource at the Tesla Factory in Fremont,
`California. Owen is, and at all relevant times herein was, an adult African-American resident of
`California.
`Plaintiff Lamar Patterson (hereinafter “Lamar”) was employed as an Elevator
`10.
`Operator jointly by defendants Chartwell and Tesla between approximately January 2016 and
`August 2016. Lamar is, and at all relevant times herein was, an adult African-American resident
`of California.
`Each Defendant is sued individually and as the agent or employee of every other
`11.
`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
`This action is based on Plaintiffs’ claims of employment discrimination against
`12.
`Defendants, which arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). This court has
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`This court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state law
`13.
`claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs’ state law claims arise from the same common nucleus
`
`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
`
`
`4
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`of operative facts as the underlying federal claims. Resolving all state and federal claims in a
`single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to all parties.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Tesla, which is a corporation
`14.
`incorporated in the state of Delaware with its corporate offices and principal place of business
`located in Fremont, California.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Citistaff, which is a
`15.
`corporation incorporated in the State of California with its corporate offices and principal place
`of business located in Newark, California.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant West Valley, which is a
`16.
`corporation incorporated in the State of California with its corporate offices and principal place
`of business located in Sunnyvale, California.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant nextSource, which is a
`17.
`corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware with its corporate offices and principal place of
`business located in New York City, New York. The acts and omissions of defendant nextSource
`complained of herein occurred in Defendant Tesla's Fremont, California factory.
`Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), because the acts
`18.
`and omissions of Defendants complained of herein occurred in Fremont, California.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`DEMETRIC DI-AZ
`In approximately August of 2015, Demetric’s father, Owen, informed him that
`19.
`West Valley had openings for positions at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, California.
`Demetric was excited at the prospect of working at the Tesla Factory so he
`20.
`applied for a position with West Valley. His application was accepted, and he signed a contract
`and began his training on August 24, 2015.
`In approximately August 2015, Demetric began working at the Tesla Factory as a
`21.
`Production Associate. Demetric participated in the development and application of Tesla’s
`manufacturing system for the battery of its electric sedan, the Model S.
`
`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
`
`
`5
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`Demetric took pride in his work, and was excited to work on the creation of
`22.
`Tesla’s innovative vehicles.
`However, Demetric found it increasingly difficult to enjoy his job because of the
`23.
`daily racist epithets that he had to endure throughout his shift. Demetric was called “nigger” on
`a regular basis, and observed other African-American employees enduring the same treatment.
`Additionally, Demetric’s father, Owen, told him about racist epithets directed at him and showed
`Demetric offensive drawings he came across at the Tesla Factory.
`This treatment continued throughout Demetric’s employment for West Valley and
`24.
`Tesla. For example, when Owen came to Demetric’s department to bring him lunch, Demetric’s
`shift lead said, “All you fucking niggers - I can’t stand you motherfuckers.”
`Demetric found this treatment demeaning and unbearably offensive.
`25.
`26.
`Demetric complained to West Valley about the racist abuse he endured at work on
`a daily basis. West Valley took no action.
`Upset and offended, Demetric complained to his supervisor at Tesla in October of
`27.
`2015. He stated, “The way you’re treating me - calling me an ‘n-word’ every day - that’s not
`right.” His supervisor replied, “If you don’t like how you’re treated, your time here is going to
`end.” “So,” Demetric asked, “you’re going to fire me?” His supervisor replied, “You’re a temp,
`anyway.”
`After Demetric complained, the racist abuse dramatically increased in frequency.
`28.
`29. Within days of making his complaint, Demetric was issued a written warning
`based on accusations of misconduct. He was accused of using his phone on the production line.
`Prior to this written warning, Demetric had a good performance record.
`30. Within just one week of his complaint to his supervisor at the Tesla Factory, he
`was terminated for “breaking the rules.” Other employees with similar warning were not
`terminated.
`Demetric believed the written warning and subsequent termination were
`31.
`pretextual. Demetric believed that his employment was terminated because he objected to the
`racist harassment and discrimination.
`
`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
`
`
`6
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
`32.
`Demetric has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress and psychological damage.
`This includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, fear, depression, and
`anxiety.
`Defendants’ actions have also resulted in wage and benefit losses, and are
`33.
`expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
`As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Demetric hired private counsel to
`34.
`prosecute this action. Pursuant to California Civil Codes Sections 52.1, 51.7, and 52(b)(3), and
`Title 42 USC section 1988, Demetric is entitled to recover attorney’s fees associated with the
`prosecution of these claims.
`Defendants’ acts were malicious or oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
`35.
`annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Demetric, and with conscious disregard of the rights and safety
`of Demetric and other African-American employees of West Valley. Demetric is informed and
`believes, and based thereon alleges, that West Valley and Tesla’s managing agents ratified the
`wrongful conduct of Tesla’s employees, because they were aware of the discriminatory conduct,
`and failed to take immediate remedial action after Demetric’s report of the oppressive conduct.
`OWEN DIAZ
`Owen was elated when he discovered, in the summer of 2015, that he would be
`36.
`working at Tesla as an Elevator Operator through Citistaff and nextSource.
`In his early days at the Tesla Factory, Owen was excited to go to work every
`37.
`morning. He was a good and hardworking employee, and his performance caught his
`supervisors’ attention. Within the first month of the start of his employment at the factory, an
`Asian-American supervisor promoted him to an elevator lead position.
`The supervisor warned him, however, that Tesla wouldn’t want “someone like
`38.
`him” to be a lead. Owen believed his supervisor was stating that Tesla would not want an
`African-American man as a lead.
`Owen’s opinion of Tesla quickly soured, as his supervisor’s prediction proved
`39.
`true. After beginning his employment at the Tesla Factory, Owen became the subject of vitriolic
`
`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
`
`
`7
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`racial harassment. Tesla Factory employees directed racial epithets, such as “nigger,” at him and
`other African-American Tesla employees on a daily basis.
`Other employees in the factory also instructed Owen, “Go back to Africa,”
`40.
`implying that, as an African-American man, Owen did not belong in the United States.
`41. When Owen was operating the elevator with Conveyance Supervisor Robert (last
`name unknown), Robert instructed Owen to press the elevator by saying, “Nigger, hurry up,
`press the button.”
`Robert regularly referred to Owen as “nigger,” and also frequently called him
`42.
`“boy” in a demeaning tone.
`To Owen, these degrading modes of address were reminiscent of the way slave
`43.
`owners referred to their slaves. He found this racist behavior to be unbearable.
`Owen also witnessed racial slurs being used towards other African-American
`44.
`employees. His son, Demetric, worked in another department of the Tesla Factory. When Owen
`brought Demetric lunch one day, he overheard Demetric’s supervisor referring to the African-
`American workers at the factory as “fucking niggers.”
`Owen felt demeaned and offended when Tesla’s employees referred to him as a
`45.
`“nigger.” The constant use of this offensive language made him depressed. However, what truly
`broke Owen down was witnessing these racist epithets directed at his son, and hearing his son
`tell him about the racism he was experiencing at work.
`Owen complained verbally to Citistaff, but Citistaff took no action. Owen also
`46.
`complained to employees of Tesla and nextSource. However, no action was taken by any of the
`entities.
`Tesla’s employees also drew racist and derogatory caricatures of African children
`47.
`that resembled the “pickaninny” imagery of the early twentieth century. These drawings
`typically featured images of dark-skinned individuals with big lips and bones in their hair.
`Features which are erroneously, and stereotypically, associated with African-American
`individuals. An example of such racially offensive conduct is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`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
`
`
`8
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`To ensure there was no doubt about the racist intent behind this appalling
`48.
`imagery, the drawings were typically accompanied with captions such as, “Booo!” - suggesting
`that African-American individuals are undesirable and unpleasant.
`These drawings were regularly placed around the factory, in locations where
`49.
`African-American employees, including Owen, were certain to view them.
`Constantly viewing this racially offensive and demeaning imagery, coupled with
`50.
`the offensive message, caused Owen to feel demeaned, disrespected, and devalued.
`Owen discovered that the elevator supervisor, Ramon, was the source of the
`51.
`drawings. Owen confronted Ramon and explained that he found the drawings offensive and
`demeaning. Owen requested that Ramon stop his behavior.
`Ramon responded flippantly, “We’re just playing, why do you people take things
`52.
`so hard?” By “you people,” Ramon meant African-American employees.
`Ramon refused to stop the offensive behavior.
`53.
`54.
`Owen was distressed that Ramon would make the assumption that his rightful
`anger over this racist act was merely oversensitivity.
`Tesla supervisor Michael Wheeler was aware of the harassment and offensive
`55.
`drawings made by Ramon around the factory, and so was Owen’s supervisor Ed Romero
`(hereinafter “Romero”). Because Owen was hired by Citistaff and nextSource, and not Tesla, he
`was informed he could not complain to Tesla’s Human Resources department. In frustration, he
`sent a written complaint to Romero, his supervisor at Tesla.
`Romero stated that he would look in to the issue, but took no action. The
`56.
`harassing Tesla employees remained employed, and Owen was forced to continue to endure their
`harassment.
`Owen also complained to Citistaff, but Citistaff likewise took no action.
`57.
`nextSource similarly failed to take sufficient action to timely address Owen’s complaints.
`On approximately October 17, 2015, Owen was training another Citistaff
`58.
`employee, Rothai. He was in the middle of explaining to Rothai that Romero would be his
`supervisor when the elevator doors opened to reveal Ramon.
`
`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
`
`
`9
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`Ramon flew into a rage upon overhearing their conversation, and shouted, “Do
`59.
`you have a problem with me?! Why are you telling him who his supervisor is?!” Owen and
`Rothai had not been speaking about Ramon at all.
`Fearful, Owen did not respond. Ramon followed him into the elevator, and came
`60.
`within inches of Owen’s body, preventing him from escaping. Ramon continued to shout and
`gesture aggressively.
`Based on Ramon’s threatening words and conduct, and previous racist and
`61.
`generally hostile conduct, Owen feared that Ramon would hit him or otherwise harm him.
`Ramon was an able-bodied male who worked as a laborer, so Owen reasonably
`62.
`believed that Ramon had the ability to physically harm him.
`Owen asked Ramon to step back, and reminded Ramon that a security camera was
`63.
`recording the exchange. Eventually, Ramon exited the elevator.
`Following this exchange, Owen contacted Romero via email. He wrote,
`64.
`“…because of the way Ramon was acting I don’t feel safe around him now. Can you please talk
`to him[?] I don’t need any problems. I just want to do my job.”
`Romero responded by writing, “Owen, I will speak to Ramon and follow up by
`65.
`speaking to you.” Romero never again contacted Owen regarding the incident. Ramon continued
`to work with Owen, and Owen was not aware of any disciplinary measures taken against Ramon.
`Owen contacted Citistaff regarding this incident, Citistaff still took no action.
`66.
`67.
`The harassment and discrimination Owen experienced escalated after he made
`this complaint. Tesla’s employees used racial slurs with greater frequency.
`Although Tesla, nextSource, and Citistaff had notice of the discriminatory and
`68.
`harassing behavior at the Tesla Factory, Tesla, nextSource, and Citistaff took no steps to protect
`African-American employees.
`In fact, Tesla, nextSource, and Citistaff ratified and supported the racially
`69.
`harassing behavior. In the spring of 2016, Citistaff informed Owen that he would be demoted
`from his supervisory position, because he was causing too much trouble, despite the fact that he
`had no negative performance reviews or disciplinary issues.
`
`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
`
`
`10
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`Owen believed this explanation was merely a pretext. Owen believed Citistaff,
`70.
`nextSource, and Tesla were threatening him with a demotion in retaliation for his complaints
`regarding the racist, discriminatory behavior he experienced.
`Eventually, in approximately May of 2016, Owen quit his employment. Owen
`71.
`could no longer bear the abusive, racially harassing treatment he encountered daily at work.
`Since Citistaff, nextSource, and Tesla had repeatedly refused to investigate the racist behavior
`and instead ratified the attempts at retaliation by threatening Owen with a demotion, he worried
`that the situation would only degenerate further.
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
`72.
`Owen has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress and psychological damage. This
`includes, but is not limited to: humiliation, mental anguish, stress, fear, depression, and anxiety.
`Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
`73.
`expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
`As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Owen hired private counsel to prosecute
`74.
`this action. Pursuant to California Civil Codes Sections 52.1, 51.7, and 52(b)(3), and Title 42
`USC Section 1988, Owen is entitled to recover attorney’s fees associated with the prosecution of
`these claims.
`Defendants’ acts were malicious or oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
`75.
`annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Owen, and with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
`Owen and other African-American employees of Defendants. Owen is informed and 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 Owen’s report of the oppressive conduct.
`LAMAR PATTERSON
`Lamar was excited to join Tesla as an Elevator Operator when he was hired in
`76.
`approximately January 2016. He worked hard and hoped to embark on a long-term career path at
`the company that he so much admired.
`
`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
`
`
`11
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`It did not take long for Lamar to learn that the company was a hotbed for racist
`77.
`behavior. Both employees and supervisors used the word “nigger” freely and frequently
`throughout the Tesla Factory, left racist caricatures, images, and effigies around the factory for
`African-American employees to see, and made “jokes” such as, “Go back to Africa. We don’t
`want you here!”
`Lamar complained to Supervisor Ed Romero about the use of the word “nigger”
`78.
`and the hurtful “jokes.” However, neither Romero nor anyone else at Tesla took action to address
`the issue; he continued to hear the racist epithets on a regular basis, throughout his workday.
`Unable to bear the abusive and racially harassing treatment he encountered daily
`79.
`at work any longer, Lamar quit his employment with Defendants Tesla and Chartwell in
`approximately August of 2016.
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants,
`80.
`Lamar has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress and psychological damage. This
`includes, but is not limited to: depression and anxiety.
`Defendants’ actions have also resulted in past wage and benefit loss, and are
`81.
`expected to lead to additional economic loss in the future.
`As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Lamar hired private counsel to prosecute
`82.
`this action. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b), California Civil Codes
`Sections 52.1, 51.7, and 52(b)(3), and Title 42 USC Section 1988, Owen is entitled to recover
`attorney’s fees associated with the prosecution of these claims.
`Defendants’ acts were malicious or oppressive, and intended to vex, injure,
`83.
`annoy, humiliate, and embarrass Lamar, and with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
`Lamar and other African-American employees of Defendants. Lamar is informed and 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 Lamar’s report of the oppressive conduct.
`On or about July 31, 2017, Lamar filed a timely charge against Defendants Tesla
`84.
`and Chartwell with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging discrimination,
`
`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
`
`
`12
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`harassment and retaliation on the basis of race and color; failure to prevent harassment,
`discrimination and retaliation; and constructive termination. The DFEH issued a right-to-sue
`letter regarding this charge on July 31, 2017.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, RACIAL HARASSMENT (HOSTILE WORK
`ENVIRONMENT), RETALIATION, FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PREVENT
`DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT, WRONGFUL TERMINATION,
`CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE
`42 U.S.C. § 1981
`(As to All Plaintiffs; Against All Defendants)
`Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference, as though fully
`85.
`reproduced herein.
`As African-American men, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class. At all
`86.
`relevant times herein, Demetric was in a contractual relationship with defendant West Valley
`within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended. At all relevant times herein, Owen was in a
`contractual relationship with defendants Citistaff, nextSource, and Tesla within the meaning of
`42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended. At all relevant times herein, Lamar was in a contractual
`relationship with defendants Chartwell and Tesla within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as
`amended.
`During the course of Demetric, Owen and Lamar’s employment, defendants
`87.
`Tesla, West Valley, Citistaff, nextSource, and Chartwell violated Plaintiffs’ rights by depriving
`Plaintiffs of their right to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of
`Plaintiffs’ employment contract “as is enjoyed by white citizens,” in direct violation of 42 U.S.C.
`§ 1981(b).
`Specifically, Tesla’s employees and supervisors subjected Plaintiffs and others to
`88.
`racial harassment, racial discrimination, and a racially hostile work environment, culminating in
`an end to their employment relationship with Tesla. Tesla, West Valley, Citistaff, nextSource,
`and Chartwell failed to investigate and prevent incidents of racial harassment, despite numerous
`reports and complaints, thereby evidencing a pattern and practice of racial discrimination and
`harassment. All five defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for complaining of a hostile work
`
`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
`
`
`13
`Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-06748-WHO Document 57 Filed 12/26/18 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`environment by issuing Demetric a written warning based on false allegations, approving the
`retaliatory termination of Demetric, and making the work environment so unbearable that Owen
`and Lamar had no choice but to quit their employment.
`Tesla acted intentionally to discriminate against Plaintiffs. Tesla’s supervisory
`89.
`employees and agents used racial epithets and racist imagery to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs
`and others, and ignored Plaintiffs’ repeated reports regarding this harassment and discrimination.
`Defendants failed to prevent the racially harassing and retaliatory behavior
`90.
`directed at Plaintiffs and others. Ultimately, Plaintiff Demetric was wrongfully terminated, and
`Plaintiffs Owen and Lamar were constructively terminated.
`Through their actions and treatment of Plaintiffs, Defendants and their agents
`91.
`intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their race.
`Defendants’ violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, caused
`92.
`Plaintiffs to suffer harm as set forth above.
`As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as set
`93.
`forth herein.
`By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiffs have
`94.
`necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the present action. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to
`reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including e