`
`ALEXIS MCKENNA, Assistant Chief Counsel (#197120)
`Alexis.McKenna@dfeh.ca.gov
`SIRITHON THANASOMBAT, Associate Chief Counsel (#270201)
`Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov
`CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
`EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
`2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
`Elk Grove, CA 95758
`Telephone: (916) 478-7251
`Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
`(Fee Exempt, Gov. Code, § 6103)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
`
`
` Case No. 22CV006830
`
`PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
`OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TESLA,
`INC.’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF
`DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
`AND HOUSING
`
`Date:
`August 24, 2022
`Time:
`10:00 AM
`Department: 21
`Judge:
`
`Reservation ID: 499459206326
`
`Action Filed:
`FAC Filed:
`Trial Date:
`
`[Filed concurrently with Declaration of Siri
`Thanasombat ISO Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def.
`Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer; Pl. DFEH’s Objs. To Def.
`Tesla’s Req. for Jud. Notice ISO Demurrer]
`
`February 9, 2022
`March 11, 2022
`TBD
`
`
`
`
`
`CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
`EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, an agency
`of the State of California,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`TESLA, INC., doing business in California as
`TESLA MOTORS, INC., and DOES ONE
`through FIFTY, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla’s Demurrer
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................ 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................................... 2
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`TESLA FAILED TO TIMELY MEET AND CONFER ...................................................... 3
`B.
`NOT BARRED BY CERTAIN PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON
`INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PARTIES, CRD PURSUES THIS GOVERNMENT
`ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC .......................................................................... 3
`TESLA’S CLAIM THAT IT LACKED NOTICE IS DISINGENUOUS ............................ 4
`1.
`The First Cause of Action Regarding Harassment is Sufficiently Pleaded .. 8
`2.
`The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action
`Regarding Discrimination are Sufficiently Pleaded ................................................. 8
`3.
`The Eighth Cause of Action Regarding Retaliation is Sufficiently Pleaded 9
`4.
`The Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action Regarding Tesla’s Failure to
`Prevent Discrimination and Harassment are Sufficiently Pleaded ........................... 9
`5.
`The Eleventh Count Regarding Unequal Pay is Sufficiently Pleaded ........ 10
`6.
`The Twelfth Count Regarding the Waiver of Rights, Forums, and
`Procedures is Sufficiently Pleaded.......................................................................... 10
`7.
`The Thirteenth Count Regarding Tesla’s Failure to Maintain and Produce
`Records is Sufficiently Pleaded .............................................................................. 10
`THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS 11
`D.
`DOES NOT BAR THIS GOVERNMENT ACTION AS CRD ALLEGED CONTINUING ........ 11
`PRACTICE OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST A GROUP ............................................................... 11
`E.
`CLAIMS IN THIS GOVERNMENT ACTION CAN BE ADJUDICATED,
`ESPECIALLY UNDER PATTERN OR PRACTICE THEORY ....................................... 13
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`- i -
`
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla’s Demurrer
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Federal Cases
`Oubichon v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp.,
`(9th Cir. 1973) 482 F.2d 569 ................................................................................................................. 6, 7
`Dep't of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc.,
`(N.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F. Supp. 2d 1159 ........................................................................................... 4, 14
`EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`(7th Cir. 2005) 409 F3d 831 .................................................................................................................. 6
`EEOC v. LA Weight Loss,
`(D. Md. 2007) 509 F.Supp.2d 527 ....................................................................................................... 12
`EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am., Inc.,
`(C.D. Ill. 1998) 900 F. Supp. 1059 ................................................................................................ 12, 15
`EEOC v. Scolari Warehouse Markets, Inc.,
`(D. Nev. 2007) 488 F.Supp.2d 1117 .................................................................................................... 12
`EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.,
`(2002) 534 U.S. 279 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the Northwest v. EEOC,
`(1980) 446 U.S. 318 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`International Broth. Of Teamsters v. U.S.,
`(1977) 431 U.S. 324 ....................................................................................................................... 14, 15
`Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss.,
`(2014) 574 U.S. 10 ............................................................................................................................... 13
`Jones v. Flowers,
`(2006) 547 U.S. 220 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
`(1950) 339 U.S. 306 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`- ii -
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(5th Cir. 1970) 431 F.2d 455 ................................................................................................................. 6
`Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
`(2002) 534 U.S. 506 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`U.S. v. Fresno Unified School Dist.,
`(9th Cir. 1979) 592 F.2d 1088 ............................................................................................................ 12
`Williams v. Owens–Illinois, Inc.,
`(9th Cir.1982) 665 F.2d 918 ................................................................................................................ 12
`State Cases
`A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc.,
`(2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677 .................................................................................................................... 3
`Alch v. Super. Ct.,
`(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339 ................................................................................ 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
`Alcorn v. Anbro Eng'g, Inc.,
`(1970) 2 Cal.3d 493 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`Angie M. v. Super. Ct.,
`(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217 .................................................................................................................. 3
`Bacon v. Wahrhaftig,
`(1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599 ................................................................................................................... 11
`Baker v. Children's Hospital Medical Center,
`(1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057 ................................................................................................................. 6
`Brown v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,
`(2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1092 .................................................................................................................. 7
`Buss v. J.O. Martin Co.,
`(1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 123 ................................................................................................................... 3
`Carroll v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 805 ............................................................................................................ 12, 13
`City of Dinuba v. Cnty. of Tulare,
`(2007) 41 Cal.4th 859 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`- iii -
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
`
`

`

`
`
`Clark v. Superior Ct.,
`(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 289 .................................................................................................................... 5
`Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.,
`(2022) 76 Cal. App.5th 685 ................................................................................................................. 14
`Ferrick v. Santa Clara University,
`(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337 .................................................................................................. 2, 7, 9, 10
`Grant v. Comp USA, Inc.,
`(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 637 .................................................................................................................. 5
`Gressley v. Williams,
`(1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636 ................................................................................................................... 2
`Guzman v. NBA Auto., Inc.,
`(2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1109 .............................................................................................................. 3, 6
`Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP,
`(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047 ................................................................................................................ 2
`Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc.,
`(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612 .............................................................................................................. 3, 11
`Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc.,
`(2014) 226 Cal. App.4th 1336 ............................................................................................................... 6
`Lickiss v. Financial Industry Reg. Auth.,
`(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125 ................................................................................................................ 3
`Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc.,
`(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841 .................................................................................................................... 2
`Mere v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,
`(2020) 35 Cal.App.5th 237 .................................................................................................................... 7
`Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Sols., Inc.,
`(2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 957 .................................................................................................................... 7
`Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc.,
`(2021) 11 Cal.5th 918 ............................................................................................................................ 4
`- iv -
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.,
`(2001) 26 Cal.4th 798 .......................................................................................................................... 12
`Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc.,
`(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635 .................................................................................................................. 7
`Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd.,
`(2009) 45 Cal.4th 992 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463 .............................................................................................................. 13
`State Pers. Bd. v. Fair Empl. & Hous. Comm’n.,
`(1985) 39 Cal.3d 422 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`Wesson v. Staples the Off. Superstore, LLC,
`(2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746 ............................................................................................................ 13, 14
`Western Title Ins. & Guar. Co. v. Bartolacelli,
`(1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 690 ................................................................................................................... 3
`State Statutes
`Cal. Const., art. III, §3 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`Code Civ. Proc., §425.10 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 7
`Code Civ. Proc., §§430.41 ......................................................................................................................... 3
`Code Civ. Proc., §452 ................................................................................................................................ 2
`Code Civ. Proc., §472 ................................................................................................................................ 2
`Evid. Code §§1040-1041 ........................................................................................................................... 5
`Gov. Code, §11180 .................................................................................................................................... 5
`Gov. Code, §12900 .................................................................................................................................... 3
`Gov. Code, §12940 ........................................................................................................................... 4, 7, 5,
`Gov. Code, §12946 .................................................................................................................................. 11
`Gov. Code, §12960 ................................................................................................................ 5, 7, 9, 11, 12
`Gov. Code, §12961 ...................................................................................................................... 11, 12, 14
`Gov. Code, §12963 .................................................................................................................... 5, 7, 11, 12
`- v -
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Gov. Code, §12963.7 ................................................................................................................................. 6
`Gov. Code, §12965 ................................................................................................................................ 2, 6
`Lab. Code, §98.7(g) ................................................................................................................................... 6
`Lab. Code, §244(a) .................................................................................................................................... 6
`Lab. Code, §432.6 .................................................................................................................................... 10
`Lab. Code, §1197.5 ............................................................................................................................ 10, 11
`State Regulations
`Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2 § 11013 ................................................................................................................ 11
`Other Authorities
`A.B.987 ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
`CACI No. 2500 .......................................................................................................................................... 8
`CACI No. 2505 .......................................................................................................................................... 9
`CACI No. 2521A ....................................................................................................................................... 8
`CACI No. 2527 ........................................................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22CV006830)
`Pl. DFEH’s Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Plaintiff California Civil Rights Department (“CRD” [formerly Department of Fair Employment
`and Housing, or DFEH]) filed this government enforcement action to remedy egregious and continuing
`unlawful workplace misconduct by Tesla, Inc. under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)
`and other state laws. In its 40-page first amended complaint (“FAC”), CRD set forth causes of action
`alleging that Tesla subjects Black and/or African American workers to ongoing harassment,
`discrimination, and retaliation. CRD alleged in detail how Tesla repeatedly failed to take all reasonable
`steps to prevent such unlawful practices. CRD pleaded that in addition to paying Black and/ or African
`American workers less than their non-Black counterparts for substantially similar work, Tesla required
`them to waive rights as a condition of employment or continued employment.
`Rather than litigate the merits of this government action under California law, Tesla instead has
`engaged in stalling tactics over the last five months. These include filing a Motion to Stay that was
`wholly denied, refusing to produce any responsive documents or information even after the court denied
`the stay, and filing this frivolous demurrer, without properly meeting and conferring. Like its other
`dilatory tactics, Tesla’s demurrer raises meritless arguments with no legal support and only aims to
`delay further the government’s prosecution. The FAC was sufficiently pleaded, and Tesla’s demurrer
`should be overruled.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`II.
`For years, Tesla subjected Black and/or African American workers to discrimination and
`harassment based on their race. These workers reported unrelenting verbal and visual harassment, job
`segregation, disproportionate discipline, unequal pay, and fewer promotional opportunities than non-
`Black workers. (FAC ¶¶ 8-10, 35-48.) Indifferent to complaints of workplace strife, Tesla not only
`allowed rampant racism to go unchecked but also retaliated against Black and/or African American
`workers who spoke up. (Id., ¶¶ 10-12,49-58.)
`Prompted by workers’ complaints against Tesla, in June 2019, CRD filed and served a Notice of
`Group or Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief and the Complaint of
`Employment Discrimination Before the State of California Department of Fair Employment and
`Housing (“Director’s Complaint”). (Id., ¶ 21; Def. Tesla’s Req. for Jud. Notice ISO Demurrer (“Tesla’s
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`RJN”), Exhs. A and B.) After approximately three years of investigation, CRD determined there was
`merit to the Director’s Complaint and issued a notice of cause finding on January 3, 2022. (FAC ¶ 22.)
`The parties participated in an unsuccessful mediation pursuant to Government Code section 12965 on
`February 8, 2022. (Id., ¶ 23.) On February 9, 2022, CRD filed this government enforcement action. On
`March 11, 2022, CRD filed its FAC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472. On April 18,
`2022, Tesla filed a Motion to Stay and Demurrer. The Motion to Stay was denied in its entirety.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A demurrer is generally a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading. A complaint must
`contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”
`(Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10.) Under pleading standards, “the plaintiff is required only to set forth the
`essential facts of his case ‘with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source
`and extent of his cause of action.’” (Alch v. Super. Ct. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 381-382 (“Alch”),
`[internal citation omitted].) Thus, to survive a demurrer, CRD “need only allege facts sufficient to state
`a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not
`be alleged.” (Ferrick v. Santa Clara University (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1341 (“Ferrick”).)
`To decide a demurrer, the allegations of a complaint should be “liberally construed, with a view
`to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) Substantial justice is attained by
`upholding a pleading if the facts alleged are adequate to state a cause of action under any theory. (See
`Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992, 998.) Even if the facts are not clearly
`stated, a pleading showing some right to relief will survive a demurrer. (See Gressley v. Williams
`(1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-44.) The reviewing court ordinarily gives the complaint “a reasonable
`interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (City of Dinuba v. Cnty. of Tulare
`(2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, 865.) The court must take as true all properly pleaded material facts and “those
`facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins.
`Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 847.)
`A demurrer is not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.
`(Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058.) For a demurrer, “the
`question of plaintiff's ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`does not concern the reviewing court.” (Alcorn v. Anbro Eng'g, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496.) A
`demurrer that attacks an entire pleading, which Tesla does here, should be denied unless no count in the
`pleading entitles the pleading party to relief. (See Western Title Ins. & Guar. Co. v. Bartolacelli (1954)
`124 Cal.App.2d 690, 694; Buss v. J.O. Martin Co. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 123, 133-34.)
`Moreover, demurrers on the grounds of uncertainty are disfavored. (Lickiss v. Financial
`Industry Reg. Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) Ambiguities that are within the defendant’s
`knowledge or that can be resolved through discovery are not appropriate for demurrer. (See Khoury v.
`Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 (“Khoury”).)
`Courts should be liberal in permitting amendment “if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has
`not been given.” (Angie M. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 [internal citations omitted].)
`It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend where there is a
`reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best
`Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 687.)
`IV. ARGUMENT
`TESLA FAILED TO TIMELY MEET AND CONFER
`Before a party demurs to a complaint, the party must meet and confer in person or by telephone
`at least five days before the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41(a)(1) and (2).)
`Tesla failed to do so. On the morning of April 13, 2022, five days before the deadline to respond to the
`FAC, CRD offered its availability that afternoon for a telephonic meet and confer. (Declaration of
`Christina T. Tellado ISO [Def. Tesla’s] Motion to Strike, ¶ 6, Exh. 5.) Tesla refused and instead offered
`“tomorrow, April 14 at or before 9:00 a.m.” (Id.) At 12:51 PM, CRD again offered to be available that
`day, but Tesla refused the offer. (Id.) In disregard of deadlines set by law, Tesla began this lawsuit by
`missing its meet and confer deadline before filing its demurrer.
`NOT BARRED BY CERTAIN PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON
`B.
`INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PARTIES, CRD PURSUES THIS GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
`BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
`In enacting the FEHA, California’s Legislature sought to safeguard the rights of all persons to
`seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination based on race or other characteristics. (Gov.
`
`A.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Code § 12900 et seq.; Cal. Const., art. III, § 3; see also Guzman v. NBA Auto., Inc. (2021) 68
`Cal.App.5th 1109, 1116 (“Guzman”); Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th
`918, 934.) “The California Supreme Court has recognized that ‘DFEH is a public prosecutor testing a
`public right,’ when it pursues civil litigation to enforce statutes within its jurisdiction.” (Dep't of Fair
`Emp. & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1167-1168
`(“LSAC”) [citing State Pers. Bd. v. Fair Empl. & Hous. Comm’n. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, 444].) In
`bringing enforcement actions, CRD acts “not merely [as] a proxy for the victims of discrimination,” but
`also “to vindicate the public interest in preventing [certain forms of] discrimination.” (LSAC, supra, 941
`F. Supp. 2d at p. 1169 [citing Gen. Tel. Co. of the Northwest v. EEOC (1980) 446 U.S. 318, 326].)
`Through many of its arguments, Tesla attempts to impose civil suit requirements applicable to
`individual private plaintiffs. (Def. Tesla’s Memo. of Points and Auth. ISO Demurrer (“Dem.”) pp. 5-7
`(administrative exhaustion), pp. 7-9 (statute of limitations), pp. 13-15 (class certification).) CRD’s
`action is not subject to such requirements. The Department holds a unique position in this case. The
`FAC alleges, for example, government pattern-or-practice allegations covering the entire period of
`unlawful practices, as well as other independent causes of action against Tesla for its failure to prevent
`discrimination, unequal pay, waiver of rights, and recordkeeping violations. Public prosecutors like
`CRD also do not face the same procedural barriers and litigation risks that private parties may. 1 As
`pleaded in the FAC, CRD brings this government action consistent with its statutory mandate to
`effectively remedy and deter discrimination in California.
`TESLA’S CLAIM THAT IT LACKED NOTICE IS DISINGENUOUS
`C.
`CRD provided Tesla more than sufficient notice of its race-based allegations during its three-
`year investigation. Since CRD first served its Director’s Complaint in June 2019, Tesla has been on
`notice that CRD was investigating race-related allegations. 2 (Tesla’s RJN, Exhs. A and B.) During the
`
`
`1 For example, class certification and arbitration agreements do not apply to CRD. (Dept. of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Law Sch.
`Admission Council, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F.Supp.2d 1159 (“LSAC”) [certification requirements not applicable to CRD];
`EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. (2002) 534 U.S. 279 [arbitration agreement does not foreclose government enforcement action].)
`2 The Director’s Complaint included the relevant statutes and clearly stated that Tesla was under investigation for race
`discrimination (“The Department has obtained information, which, if proven, indicates Respondent may have engaged, and
`may continue to engage, in discriminatory practices against African American employees on the basis of race, in violation of
`Government Code section 12940.”); harassment (“the Department alleges that Respondent’s African American employees
`have been subjected to harassment on the basis of race. If proven, these allegations would constitute violations of
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`investigation, the government served multiple rounds of investigative interrogatories, requests for
`documents, and subpoenas. Through the approximately 200 investigative requests, CRD asked Tesla
`about the topics covered in the FAC allegations. 3 (Declaration of Siri Thanasombat ISO Pl. DFEH’s
`Opposition to Def. Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer, ¶ 4.) The allegations of the FAC are within the scope of the
`administrative investigation.
`In its demurrer, Tesla takes another bite at the apple with arguments regarding the sufficiency of
`notice from its Motion to Stay (Dem. pp. 5-7), which the Court denied in full. (DFEH v. Tesla, Inc.
`(Super. Ct. Alameda County, June 8, 2022, No. 22CV006830) [Order denying stay].) Citing the wrong
`statutory provision, 4 Tesla again claims that CRD was required to include certain words 5 or certain
`“date[s], location[s], or factual context[s]” in its Director’s Complaint. (Dem. pp. 2-3, 6-7.) Denying
`the stay, this Court already dispensed with Tesla’s arguments that the Director’s Complaint,
`investigation, and dispute resolution process “should provide more notice to an employer.” (Ibid.)
`Relatedly, Tesla also attacks CRD for not exhausting administrative remedies. 6 The purpose of
`the FEHA’s administrative exhaustion requirement, among others, is to ensure that individuals provide
`CRD the opportunity to investigate and resolve disputes, “permitting the agency to … apply its expertise
`and exercise statutorily delegated remedies,” including seeking conciliation. (Grant v. Comp USA, Inc.
`
`
`Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j).”); retaliation (“The Department further alleges that Respondent has
`retaliated against employees who have reported or opposed harassment on the basis of race. If proven, these allegations
`would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h).”); and failure to prevent harassment from
`occurring (“The Department further alleges that Respondent failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent
`harassment from occurring. If proven, these allegations would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940,
`subdivision (k).”). (Tesla’s RJN, Exh. B.) CRD even included a provision indicating that other allegations may be
`investigated: “The investigation is ongoing and will further determine the scope and merits of these allegations.” (Ibid.)
`3 Pursuant to Gov. Code 11180 and Evidence Code §§1040-1041, details uncovered in CRD investigations are kept
`confidential.
`4 Despite CRD’s clarifications, Tesla insists on citing to Government Code sections 12960 and 12963 for the proposition that
`CRD is required to include “particulars” in the Director’s Complaint. (Dem. pp. 1, 2, 4-7.). CRD is not. Tesla seeks to
`deliberately conflate a requirement to notify and the sufficiency of the notice.
`5 Tesla insists the Director’s Complaint must contain the words “assignment," "compensation," "discipline," "promotion,"
`"'termination," "constructive discharge," "unequal pay," and/or imposition of a "waiver of rights" (Dem. p. 12). Employment
`discr