`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and DAXTON
`LYNCH
`JOHN
`HARTSFIELD,
`individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`TESLA, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`John Lynch and Daxton Hartsfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, file this Class Action Complaint against Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) for violating the
`
`Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et sq. (the “WARN Act”)
`
`by terminating Plaintiffs and Class Members without providing sufficient (or any) advance written
`
`notice.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Tesla has violated the WARN Act by terminating Plaintiffs and similarly situated
`
`individuals (the “Class Members”) without advance or written notice.
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to the WARN Act, Tesla is required to provide Plaintiffs and Class
`
`Members with the required sixty (60) days advance written notice of a mass layoff. However, in
`
`connection with the recent mass layoffs, Tesla has not provided written notice, or advance notice,
`
`to Plaintiffs and the “Class Members” prior to terminating their employment.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employees of Tesla who have been
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`terminated without cause on their part as a part of mass layoffs beginning in approximately May or
`
`June of 2022.
`
`4.
`
`Tesla has failed to give Plaintiffs and the Class Members any advance written notice
`
`of their terminations. Instead, Tesla has simply notified the employees that their terminations
`
`would be effective immediately. Tesla has also failed to provide a statement of the basis for
`
`reducing the notification period to zero days advance notice.
`
`5.
`
`Tesla’s failure to provide its employees with any advance written notice has had a
`
`devastating economic impact on Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
`
`6.
`
`As a consequence, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled under the WARN
`
`Act to recover from Tesla their respective compensation and benefits for sixty (60) days.
`
`7.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class defined as:
`
`All former Tesla employees throughout the United States who have
`not been given a minimum of sixty (60) days written notice of
`termination and whose employment has been terminated as a result of
`a “mass layoff” or “plant closing,” as defined by the Workers
`Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, beginning in
`approximately May or June of 2022
`
`8.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class
`
`Members, seek recovery of damages in the amount of sixty (60) days’ compensation and benefits
`
`for each of them by reason of Tesla’s violation of their rights under the WARN Act.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff John Lynch is an adult resident of Nevada. Until his layoff, Plaintiff Lynch
`
`worked as an employee of Tesla at its Sparks, Nevada Gigafactory. Lynch is an “aggrieved
`
`employee” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(7).
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Daxton Hartsfield is an adult resident of Nevada. Until his layoff, Plaintiff
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Hartsfield worked as an employee of Tesla at its Sparks, Nevada Gigafactory. Hartsfield is an
`
`“aggrieved employee” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(7).
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of the Class Members.
`
`The Class Members consist of all former Tesla employees throughout the United States who have
`
`not been given a minimum of sixty (60) days’ written notice of termination and whose employment
`
`was terminated in “mass layoffs” or “plant closings,” as defined by the Workers Adjustment and
`
`Retraining Notification Act of 1988, beginning in May or June of 2022.
`
`12.
`
`At all relevant times, Tesla has been a business authorized to conduct business in
`
`the State of Texas. Tesla’s principal place of business is 13101 Harold Green Road, Austin, Texas
`
`78725. Tesla is a public corporation and may be served by serving its registered agent for service of
`
`process, CT Corporation, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever it may be
`
`found.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
`
`29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5).
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over this matter because Tesla
`
`is
`
`headquartered in this District and conducts substantial business operations in this District.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS
`
`15.
`
`Tesla employs thousands of people across the United States. On information and
`
`belief, in approximately May or June 2022, Tesla initiated a mass layoff of employees at its sites
`
`across the country. It has been widely reported in the media that in early June 2022, Tesla’s CEO
`
`Elon Musk communicated to Tesla’s top executives that Tesla needed to eliminate 10% of its total
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`workforce.
`
`16.
`
`Prior to their terminations, the named Plaintiffs were employed in Tesla’s
`
`Gigafactory 2 plant in Sparks, Nevada.
`
`17.
`
`On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff Lynch was notified that his employment was being
`
`terminated effective immediately. Tesla did not provide sixty (60) days advance written notice (or
`
`any advance notice at all) to Plaintiff Lynch of his impending layoff.
`
`18.
`
`On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Hartsfield was notified that his employment was being
`
`terminated effective immediately. Tesla did not provide sixty (60) days advance written notice (or
`
`any advance notice at all) to Plaintiff Hartsfield of his impending layoff.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, thousands of other employees working for Tesla
`
`across the United States have been terminated (collectively, the “Class Members”). In fact, Tesla
`
`terminated more than 500 employees alone at its Gigafactory 2 plant in Sparks, Nevada where the
`
`named Plaintiffs were employed.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the other members of the Class.
`
`21.
`
`At all relevant times, Tesla has employed 100 or more employees, exclusive of part-
`
`time employees, (i.e., those employees who had worked fewer than 6 of the 12 months prior to the
`
`date notice was required to be given or who had worked fewer than an average of 20 hours per week
`
`during the 90 day period prior to the date notice was required to be given) (the “Part-Time
`
`Employees”), or employed 100 or more employees who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000
`
`hours per week exclusive of hours of overtime within the United States.
`
`22.
`
`The terminations beginning in approximately May or June 2022, of the employment
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`of persons who worked at the various facilities for Tesla have resulted in the loss of employment
`
`for more than 500 employees (excluding part-time employees).
`
`23. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have not received
`
`written notice at least sixty (60) days in advance of the termination of their employment, and have
`
`not received as much notice as practicable under the circumstances
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS
`
`V.
`
`24.
`
`The above and foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class Members constitute a Class within the meaning of Rules
`
`23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`26.
`
`The Class Members are similarly situated to the Plaintiffs with respect to their
`
`rights under the WARN Act.
`
`27.
`
`Common questions of law and fact are applicable to all members of the Class.
`
`28.
`
`The common questions of law and fact arise from and concern the following facts,
`
`among others:
`
`a. That all Class Members enjoyed the protection of the WARN Act;
`
`b. That all Class Members have been employees of Tesla and worked at Tesla’s
`facilities;
`
`c. That Tesla has terminated the employment of all Class Members without cause on
`their part;
`
`d. That Tesla has terminated the employment of the Class Members without giving
`them at least sixty (60) days prior written notice as required by the WARN Act;
`
`e. That Tesla has failed to pay the Class Members wages and to provide other
`employee benefits for a 60-day period following their respective terminations; and,
`
`f. On information and belief, the issues raised by affirmative defenses that may be
`asserted by Tesla.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members in that for each of
`
`the several acts of Tesla described above, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are injured parties with
`
`respect to their rights under the WARN Act.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class
`
`Members.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs and their counsel have the time, ability, and resources to prosecute this
`
`action.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel who have experience litigating
`
`class action claims, employee rights claims, and other claims in federal court.
`
`33.
`
`The Class is so numerous as to render joinder of all members impracticable in that
`
`there are thousands of members of the Class.
`
`34.
`
`The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members predominate over any
`
`questions affecting only individual members.
`
`35.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the controversy.
`
`36.
`
`Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of the
`
`Class Members in this Court will avoid a multiplicity of suits, will conserve judicial resources and
`
`the resources of the parties, and is the most efficient means of resolving the WARN Act rights of
`
`all Class Members.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Tesla’s violation of the WARN Act, each Class Member is entitled to
`
`recover an amount equal to the sum of: (a) his/her respective wages, salaries, commissions,
`
`bonuses, and accrued pay for vacation and personal days for the workdays in the sixty (60) calendar
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`days prior to their respective terminations and fringe benefits for sixty (60) calendar days prior to
`
`their respective terminations; (b) his/her medical expenses incurred during the 60-day period
`
`following their respective terminations that would have been covered and paid under Tesla’s
`
`health insurance plan had that plan provided coverage for such period.
`
`38.
`
`Tesla has failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members for Tesla’s violation of the
`
`WARN Act in an amount equal to the sum of or any part of the sum of (a) their respective wages,
`
`salary, commissions, bonuses, and accrued pay for vacation and personal days for the workdays in
`
`the 60 calendar days prior to their respective terminations and fringe benefits for sixty (60)
`
`calendar days prior to their respective terminations; and (b) their medical expenses incurred during
`
`the sixty (60) calendar days from and after the date of his/her termination that would have been
`
`covered under the Defendant’s benefit plans had those plans remained in effect.
`
`VI. COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS OF THE WARN ACT
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs reassert and re-allege the allegations set forth above.
`
`40.
`
`At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons have been
`
`entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101
`
`et. seq. 24. Tesla was, and is, subject to the notice and back pay requirements of the federal WARN
`
`Act because Tesla is a business enterprise that employed 100 or more employees, excluding part-
`
`time employees, and/or, employed 100 or more employees who in the aggregate work at least 4,000
`
`hours per week (exclusive of overtime), as defined in the WARN Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101(1)(A)
`
`and(B).
`
`41.
`
`The WARN Act regulates the amount of notice an employer must provide to
`
`employees who will be terminated due to the employer’s closing of a plant or mass layoffs, as well
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`as the back pay and other associated benefits an affected employee is due based on a violation of
`
`the required notice period. Pursuant to the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2102, and 20 C.F.R. § 639.1-
`
`§ 639.10 et seq., Tesla has been required to provide at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of
`
`the termination, or notice as soon as practicable, to the affected employees, explaining why the
`
`sixty (60) days prior notice was not given.
`
`42.
`
`Tesla has willfully violated the federal WARN Act by failing to provide the required
`
`notice. Tesla has failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees their respective
`
`wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, and accrued vacation for 60 working
`
`days following their respective terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k)
`
`contributions, provide other employee benefits under ERISA, and pay their medical expenses for
`
`sixty (60) calendar days from and after the dates of their respective terminations.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, Tesla has not served any prior written notice of this
`
`layoff to any state dislocated worker unit or local government.
`
`44.
`
`Section 2103 of the federal WARN Act exempts certain employers from the notice
`
`requirements of the Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2103(1)-(2). None of the WARN Act exemptions apply to
`
`Tesla. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and class members must receive the notice and back pay required by
`
`the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2102, 2104.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees have been damaged by Tesla’s
`
`conduct constituting violations of the WARN Act and are entitled to damages for their back pay
`
`and associated benefits for each day of the violation because Tesla has not acted in good faith nor
`
`with reasonable grounds to believe their acts and omissions were not a violation of the WARN Act.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`PRAYER
`
`47.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs on an individual basis and on a representative basis on behalf
`
`of the Class Members, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
`
`Tesla, awarding Plaintiffs on an individual basis and on a representative basis on behalf of the Class
`
`Members the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`certifying this action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
`
`b. designating Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and designating Plaintiffs’ counsel
`as class counsel;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`compensatory damages in an amount equal to at least the amounts provided by the
`WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a);
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and disbursements as allowed by the
`WARN Act, 20 U.S.C. § 2104(1)(6); and
`
`any other and further relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class Members may be justly
`entitled.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00597 Document 1 Filed 06/19/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Drew N. Herrmann
`
`Drew N. Herrmann
`
`Texas Bar No. 24086523
`
`drew@herrmannlaw.com
`
`Pamela G. Herrmann
`
`Texas Bar No. 24104030
`
`pamela@herrmannlaw.com
`
`Allison H. Luttrell
`
`Texas Bar No. 24121294
`
`allison@herrmannlaw.com
`
`HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
`801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`Phone: 817-479-9229
`Fax: 817-840-5102
`
`-AND-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Harold L. Lichten, pro hac vice anticipated
`hlichten@llrlaw.com
`Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice anticipated
`sliss@llrlaw.com
`Thomas Fowler, pro hac vice anticipated
`tfowler@llrlaw.com
`Zachary Rubin, pro hac vice anticipated
`zrubin@llrlaw.com
`Matthew Patton, pro hac vice anticipated
`mpatton@llrlaw.com
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`
`Tel. 617-994-5800
`Fax: 617-994-5801
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`AND CLASS MEMBERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`